MOHAMMED BASHEER Vs. SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TRIVANDRUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is engaged in exporting cashew kernels. Against the order of the assessing authority, petitioner filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (the respondent) and prayed for stay of realisation of the amount assessed. The Appellate Tribunal, by exhibit P5 order, granted a conditional stay. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows : " We direct the petitioner to pay 1/3rd of the disputed tax and surcharge for the year 1981-82 and 50 per cent of the deputed tax for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Collection of balance 2/3rd for the year 1981-82 and 50 per cent for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 is stayed till December 31, 1994 or till disposal of appeal, whichever is earlier on the condition that the petitioner furnishes security for the amount stayed before the assessing authority within 4 weeks, failing which the stay granted shall vacate automatically. Appeals posted for hearing in October 1994. State Representative is directed to produce all the records at the time of hearing. "

(2.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by the said order and contends, inter alia, that the respondent has not applied his mind and passed an order mechanically. In spite of the fact that the petitioner has filed form 18a declaration covering huge amounts, no exemption to that extent has been granted and no reason is stated in the order as to why the petitioner is not entitled to exemption in respect of the amount covered under form 18a declarations. Hence the petitioner prays for quashing exhibit P5 order and to issue an interim direction to the respondent not to collect any tax from the petitioner in respect of the assessment years 1981 to 1984.

(3.) THERE is no dispute at all that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to pass a conditional order of stay. The Tribunal normally passes such orders by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. On a perusal of the order, it appears that the Tribunal has not passed a blanket or a mechanical order. On the other hand, it has applied its mind and passed orders specifying the quantum of deposit to be made in respect of the disputed tax. The determination of the percentage of deposit to be made varies from year to year. As is evident for the year 1981-82, only 1/3rd of the disputed tax was directed to be deposited whereas in the latter years it is 50 per cent. Further, the petitioner has been directed to furnish security for the amount stayed. Under the relevant rules, the appellate authority or the Tribunal has the power to direct the appellant to furnish security. The Tribunal has acted in accordance with those rules. Nothing has been shown as to whether the order is perverse or illegal.