JOMOL TRADING COMPANY Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a partnership firm, which is a dealer registered under the KVAT Act. Assessment for the year 2008 -2009 was completed against the petitioner under Section 25 of the KVAT Act. Ext. P2 is an appeal filed against the assessment order and Ext. P3 is the stay petition. On the stay petition, petitioner was heard and the appellate authority passed Ext. P4 order granting stay on condition that the petitioner will remit 40% of the amount due and furnish security for the balance amount. According to the petitioner, Ext. P1 assessment order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that the assessment proceedings is mainly based on the records obtained from the check post recording payment of advance tax in respect of the consignments mentioned in the order. It is stated that on being disclosed of the details of the advance tax records relied on, petitioner sought cross examination of the concerned dealers. It is stated that request to cross examine them has been denied and the assessment has been completed by Ext. P1. Counsel for the petitioner contends that this is violative of the principles of natural justice.

(2.) HOWEVER a reading of the order shows that the appellate authority has given detailed reasons for rejecting the request for cross examination. To decide the correctness or otherwise of those reasons assigned by the appellate authority appreciation of evidence is necessary. Therefore, contention raised by the petitioner can be dealt only by the appellate authority while considering the appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext. P1 order. In so far as Ext. P4 order of stay passed by the appellate authority is concerned, by that order petitioner has been directed to remit 40% of the amount due. A reading of the order shows that having regard to the contentions of the petitioner, the appellate authority was satisfied about the prima facie case made out and exercising its discretionary power, this order has been passed. I do not see any perversity in the order. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner seeks two weeks time to comply with Ext. P4 order. Taking note of the submissions made, time to comply with Ext. P4 order will stand extended by two weeks from today.