HKA AGENCIES Vs. SECRETARY TAXES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Exhibit P1 is a demand notice calling upon the petitioner to pay about Rs. 68,00,000 (rupees sixty eight lakhs only) towards tax for the year 2007-08. On receipt of exhibit P1 the petitioner filed exhibit P2 application for rectification and had also filed an appeal against exhibit P1. Meanwhile, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated and that was challenged before this court in Writ Petition No. 6906 of 2011. That writ petition was disposed of by exhibit P5 judgment directing disposal of the stay petition filed along with the appeal. It was further directed that orders will be passed on the rectification application and in the meanwhile stay was also granted. Pursuant to the directions exhibit P6 order was passed on the rectification application and thereafter in the stay petition exhibit P13 order was passed granting stay on condition that the petitioner pays Rs. 4,00,000 (rupees four lakhs only) and furnish security for the balance. It appears that against exhibit P13 the petitioner filed exhibit P15 revision before the same authority.

(2.) It is thereafter that this writ petition has been filed mainly challenging exhibit P13. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that since exhibits P1 and P6 orders are totally illegal the condition imposed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained. I am unable to accept the said contention. The merits of the controversy are matters to be decided as and when the appeal is finally heard and the question now is whether the appellate authority was justified in passing a conditional order. In my view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate authority cannot be faulted because substantial amount is due from the petitioner under the order of assessment. In such circumstances this order cannot be said to be vitiated warranting interference. In so far as the prayer of the petitioner for the disposal of exhibit P15 is concerned, no provision of law has been shown to be enabling the petitioner to file such a revision before the very same authority, who has passed exhibit P17. Therefore, I am not persuaded to direct consideration as prayed for.