ROBYMON Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the writ petitioner. The Writ Petition was filed seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) He would also submit that in some cases, the learned Single Judge passed orders directing disposal of the stay petition itself and granted stay of recovery unconditionally whereas in this case very heavy condition is imposed. He would submit that, the soul of the law is reason and no reasons are forthcoming. He would further submit that, it is for the appellate authority to consider the conditions to be imposed and it is not a provision like S. 17(d) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act under which appeal is not maintainable unless the entire amount is paid and on a party coming to this Court seeking relief imposing of such conditions in some cases and giving unconditional orders in others has created great deal of uncertainty in the law. He would also submit the difficulties of the appellant inasmuch as the appellant stopped business and is undergoing treatment.

(3.) Learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would submit that, this is a case where the appellant did not produce assessment order. The assessment order would show that the appellant did not even file the return. He was issued with pre-assessment notice. To the same also he did not respond. The officer was left with no other choice. He had the material in the form of previous assessments and he made assessment in this case in the circumstances and really there is no injustice at all. He would further submit that, the calculation of 275 days delay by the appellant is incorrect. According to the learned Government Pleader, the order is dated 14.8.2008. The appeal is filed on 14.1.2013. The delay is more than 3 years. According to him, the assessment order was served on 19.9.2008. It is also affixed, he submits. He would therefore submit that there is no merit at all in this case.