K.S. Santhosh, Prop. Quality Machinery Suppliers, Room No. 9/1269 Old), 10/569 (New), Mootharayil Complex, Koottupatha, Bpl Junction, Palakkad vs The Commercial Tax Officer, 2nd Circle, Palakkad, Pin- 678 001, The Assistant Commissioner (Appeals), Department of Commercial Taxes, Palakkad, Pin- 678001 and Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Department of Commercial Taxes, Palakkad- 678 001

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—Being aggrieved by Ext.P2 assessment order for the assessment year 2009-10 passed by the first respondent, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 appeal along with Ext.P4 petition for stay before the second respondent. After considering the I.A. for stay, the second respondent passed Ext.P5 order dismissing the stay petition, holding that there was absolutely no ground to consider the relief sought for. This made the petitioner to approach this Court, challenging the same, stating that the course pursued in keeping the appeal pending, without enabling the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy, if there was no merit, is not correct or proper. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

The observations made by the second respondent in Ext.P5 is as follows:

The assessing authority therefore levied tax @ 12.5% on a turnover of Rs. 40,70,629/-. This order of assessment is now under challenge in this appeal on the ground that they had not misclassified the goods in the books of accounts and sales invoices. It is also argued that there was some error while e-filing the Return. On perusal of the records it is seen that the appellant did not produce the sale bills for verification by the assessing authority. The Return are seen not revised. Audited statements are also not field. Hence I find no merit in the argument now raised.

I have considered the contentions of the appellant. After considering the issues under dispute I find no reason for granting conditional stay. In the circumstances the following orders are passed.

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, the second respondent was of the view that, no prima facie case was made out by the petitioner in the appeal, so as to grant any interim order, which led to the dismissal of I.A. as per Ext.P5. If no prima facie case was made out, what remains in the appeal, is a matter to be considered and looked into forthwith. In the said circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 appeal in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible at any rate, within ''one month'' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P6 shall be kept in abeyance till such time.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on merits and all contentions are left open.