K P SANALKUMAR Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is challenging Ext. P8 order passed by the second respondent/appellate authority imposing a condition to pay a portion of the amount assessed as liability during the pendency of Ext. P3 appeal filed against exts. P1 and P2 impugned assessment order and erratum order respectively. It is stated that the reason stated for imposing the condition, as evident from ext. P8, is that the petitioner/appellant therein did not produce 'conclusive evidence' for granting unconditional stay.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not provided with adequate opportunity to produce 'conclusive evidence' as intended by the appellate authority and hence seeks for one more opportunity to produce all the requisite evidence for substantiating his case.

(3.) HEARD the learned Government Pleader as well.