ABDUL HAKKIM Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, IIND CIRCLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGAINST Ext.P1 order of assessment, petitioner filed Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition. On the stay petition, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P5 order. Even before that order, recovery proceedings were initiated by Ext.P6. In this writ petition petitioner challenges Ext.P5.

(2.) A reading of Ext.P5 shows that stay has been granted on condition that the petitioner remits 1/3rd of the demand and furnishes security for the balance. However, learned counsel submits that the condition imposed is onerous. He refers to Ext.P1 assessment order and submits that in the monthly returns for April to July, 2010, the total turn over returned was only Rs.1,26,918.00 which is accepted by the Department. It is stated as against that, for the subsequent four months, on the ground that returns were not filed, turn over has been estimated at Rs.30 Lakhs. This according to the learned counsel has no basis at all.

(3.) ALTHOUGH the learned Government Pleader attempted to justify Ext.P5 order, having gone through Ext.P1, prima facie, I do not find any basis for the turn over estimated. In such circumstances, remittance of 1/3rd of the demand is an onerous condition.