BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD. Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the condition imposed by the second respondent while passing Exts. P9/P9(a) orders granting interim stay during the pendency of appeal, directing the petitioner to satisfy 30% of the disputed liability so as to avail the benefit of the interim stay.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that, the assessment proceedings were finalized in a hasty manner, without giving sufficient opportunity for producing the relevant documents. On receipt of Exts. P2/P2(a) notices under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act and Rule 6(5) of the CST Rules, the petitioner submitted Exts. P3/P3(a) on 17.07.2014 seeking for some more reasonable time to submit a detailed reply and relevant documents. This however was not acceded to and Exts. P4/P4(a) came to be passed on 30.07.2014, being aggrieved of which, the petitioner approached the second respondent by way of Exts. P5/P5(a) appeals along with P6/P6(a) petitions for stay. Because of the coercive proceedings the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C). No. 22212 of 2014, which was disposed of, directing the concerned respondent to consider and dispose of the I.A. for stay within the time as specified therein. Pursuant to the said verdict, the second respondent considered the stay petition and passed Exts. P9/P9(a) orders imposing the condition as aforesaid, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by way of present writ petition.

(3.) Heard the learned Government pleader as well, who submits that, Ext. P3 was never submitted by the petitioner as contended and has submitted only Ext. P3(a). It is also pointed out that, time was granted to the petitioner before passing Exts. P4/P4(a), but no proper reply or relevant documents were produced before the assessing authority. The learned Government Pleader also submits that, several other lapses were also there on the part of the petitioner as discernible from Exts. P4/P4(a) orders.