SSD OILS MILLS COMPANY LTD. Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P4 order, whereby the petitioner has been directed to satisfy 30% of the disputed liability and to furnish sufficient security for the balance amount, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the statutory appeal in respect of the assessment year '2006 -07'. The very same order also directs the petitioner to satisfy the liability as specified therein in respect of the assessment year '2007 -08' with regard to which the petitioner does not have any challenge or grievance as projected in the Writ Petition.

(2.) THE respondents have filed a statement seeking to sustain the course and events pursued by the respondent, giving facts and figures with regard to the extent of liability involved, thus seeking to sustain the impugned order.

(3.) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances, and also as to the extent of liability as projected in the statement and also the dispute made from the part of the petitioner, the only question to be considered is whether there is proper application of mind while passing Ext.P4 order, while imposing the condition upon the petitioner for availing the benefit of stay. Ext P4 reveals that the relevant contentions raised from the part of the petitioner were very much adverted to and it was thereafter that the order has been passed directing the petitioner to satisfy the liability to the specified extent so as to avail the benefit of interim stay. This being the position, it cannot be said that Ext.P4 order is a 'non -speaking order'; or that the same has been passed without any application of mind.