Court directs fifth respondent to issue final orders in Ext.P7 series appeals within 2 months, with petitioner's hearing opportunity. Coercive proceedings stayed.

The court directed the fifth respondent to issue final orders in the Ext.P7 series appeals within two months, considering the law and providing the petitioner with a hearing opportunity. Coercive proceedings were stayed during this period. The State's second appeal against the Ext.P5 order was noted, indicating ongoing legal actions. The petitioner was instructed to provide a copy of the judgment and writ petition to the fifth respondent for further action, disposing of the writ petition and setting a timeline for the final decision on the pending appeals.

---

---

Issues:
1. Condition imposed by the fifth respondent in Ext.P9 interim order
2. Nature of transaction and liability imposed on the petitioner
3. Previous assessment year and appellate proceedings
4. Mechanical imposition of conditions without considering judicial precedents
5. State's second appeal against Ext.P5 order
6. Directions for final orders in Ext.P7 series appeals

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged the condition imposed by the fifth respondent in the Ext.P9 interim order, requiring the petitioner to satisfy 25% of the outstanding demand by a specified date to avail the benefit of interim stay during the appeal's pendency. The petitioner contended that the condition was onerous and not in line with the relevant provisions of law, as the transaction in question was a service and not a sale, as per judicial precedents.

2. The petitioner argued that Ext. P6 series of assessment orders imposed a substantial liability despite the nature of the transaction being a service, not subject to tax under the KVAT Act based on legal precedents. The petitioner had filed Ext.P7 series of appeals with stay applications, leading to the issuance of the contested Ext.P9 order without proper consideration of facts and legal provisions.

3. In relation to the previous assessment year, the petitioner had pursued legal remedies through Writ Petition and subsequent Writ Appeal, resulting in the appellate authority modifying the assessment and remitting the matter back for reconsideration. However, the same officer issued the Ext.P9 order without referencing the previous order or judicial pronouncements, leading to the challenge.

4. The court noted the need for a final decision in light of the Division Bench's order in Ext.P4 and the modified assessment in Ext.P5. The court directed the fifth respondent to issue final orders in Ext.P7 series appeals within two months, considering the law and providing the petitioner with a hearing opportunity, while staying coercive proceedings during this period.

5. The learned Government Pleader informed the court about the State's second appeal against the Ext.P5 order, indicating ongoing legal actions related to the matter.

6. The judgment concluded by instructing the petitioner to provide a copy of the judgment and writ petition to the fifth respondent for further action, disposing of the writ petition and setting a timeline for the final decision on the pending appeals.

---