Indian Bank vs Commercial Tax Officer and The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—Challenging Exts. P1(a) and P1 (b) assessment orders, in respect the assessment years 2006-''07 and 2007-''08, the petitioner has preferred Exts. P3 (a) and (b) appeals, which are pending consideration before the second respondent. Pursuant to the hearing hearing held on the interlocutory application for stay, the second respondent passed Ext. P4 order on 12.7.2010, whereby the further coercive proceedings caused to be stayed, on condition that, the petitioner deposited 1/3rd of the disputed liability and furnished security for the balance amount before the assessing authority within two weeks. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the condition imposed by the appellate authority is not correct or sustainable and many a ground has been raised in the Writ Petition as to the merits involved.

The learned Government Pleader submits that, the case projected by the petitioner in the memorandum of appeal has very well been looked into by the appellate authority while passing Ext. P3 interim order and the merits have been discussed in detail. After taking note of the entire facts and circumstances, the appellate authority granted interim stay, subject to the condition, which is not arbitrary or a burden to the petitioner, who is a public sector Bank.

Considering the facts and circumstances and also going to the contents of Ext. P4 impugned in this Writ Petition, this Court finds that, the merits involved has been looked into by appellate authority while imposing the condition. In other words, Ext. P4 is not liable to be declared as a non-speaking order nor is it arbitrary in any manner. The extent of actual liability, has to be ascertained in the course of adjudication of the appeal proceedings. Interim order is only to strike a balance, to subserve the main relief.

In the above circumstances, this Court does not find it necessary to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. However, taking note of the fact that, the time stipulated vide Ext. P4 is already over, the petitioner is permitted to have two weeks'' time to comply with the condition imposed vide Ext. P4.