MATHEW GEORGE Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXTS .P1 to P3 assessment orders in respect of the assessment years 2008 -09 to 2010 -11 have been subjected to challenge in Exts.P5, P6 and P7 appeals, along with Ext.P5(b), P6(b) and P7(b) petitions for stay. After considering the interlocutory applications for stay, the appellate authority passed Ext.P11 order in respect of the assessment year 2008 -09, whereby a complete stay has been granted, on being satisfied with the merits involved. However, coming to the other two assessment orders, a common order was passed as per Ext.P12, holding that the petitioner was liable to satisfy 50% of the amount due and furnish security for the balance amount during the pendency of the appeal, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay, the correctness of which is under challenge in this writ petition. The second respondent has filed a statement seeking to sustain the course and events, pointing out that the assessment year 2008 -09 stands on a different footing, than the other two years, which is stated as the reason for mulcting the liability to an extent of 50%. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit as well, seeking to rebut the said statement.

(2.) AFTER hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, the nature of contention raised by the petitioner in respect of the assessment years in question are more or less similar, as extracted by the appellate authority. The observation by the appellate authority in Ext.P11 in respect of the year 2008 -09 to grant a full stay, is as follows :