GANESH ENTERPRISES Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved of Exts.P3(a) and P3(b) assessment orders under the KVAT Act and CST Act respectively, the petitioner has preferred Exts.P4(a) and P4(b) appeals along with Exts.P5(a) and P5(b) petitions for stay. After considering the interlocutory applications for stay, the appellate authority passed Ext.P6(a) and P6(b) orders directing the petitioner/appellant to satisfy 1/3rd of the disputed liability and to furnish adequate security for the balance amount, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of appeal, which forms the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that many a ground has been raised in the appeal, also producing all the requisite documents before the appellate authority in support of the case. If the above documents were looked into and the specific plea of the petitioner/appellant was analysed and appreciated, there would not have been any chance for imposing any condition. The course pursued by the appellate authority, stating that it can examined only in the due course of time, virtually amounts to refusal to exercise the statutory power and jurisdiction vested in the appellate authority. Reliance is also sought to be placed on the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Supreme Electrical Engineering (P) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (2008 (3) KLT 805).

(3.) IN the said circumstance, this Court finds that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the appellate authority. Accordingly, Exts.P6(a) and P6(b) are set aside and the second respondent is directed to reconsider Exts. P5(a) and P5(b) I.As for stay and pass a 'speaking order', which exercise shall be pursued 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. The recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance, till such time. Writ petition is disposed of.