JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the condition imposed by Ext.P1 order, whereby the petitioner has been required to satisfy 40% of the disputed liability, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during pendency of the appeal.

2. The sequence of events reveals that, being aggrieved of the assessment, the petitioner availed the statutory remedy by approaching the first respondent along with a petition for interim stay. In view of the coercive proceedings, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.3331 of 2014 which was disposed of as per judgment delivered on 10.2.2014, directing the appellate authority to consider the stay petition and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It was accordingly, that Ext.P1 order came to be passed, which according to the petitioner is not correct or sustainable and hence under challenge.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well who points out that the assessment was finalized, also in view of the non-filing of the monthly returns, which fact is sought to be rebutted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is brought to the notice of this Court that, pursuant to the judgment passed by this Court