IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21063 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.KAIRALI AYURVEDIC HEALTH RESORT PVT. LTD, OLASSERY P.O., KODUMBU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHRI.K.V.RAMESH. BY ADV. MR. T.M.SREEDHARAN MR. V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC & LT), PALAKKAD. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM. 3. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB), PALAKKAD. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETRIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 21063 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 28th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved of Ext.P7 order passed by the second respondent, imposing a condition to satisfy a portion of the due amount while granting the interim stay during the pendency of the appeal. 2. Challenging Ext.P2 assessment order passed by the first respondent in respect of the assessment years 2003 - '04 to 2007 - '08, the petitioner preferred Ext.P4 appeal before the second respondent, along with Ext.P5 petition for stay. After considering the facts and figures, the second respondent/appellate authority chose to grant on interim order, subject to the condition that, the petitioner paid a total sum of Rs. 25 lakhs in respect of the the amount due under Ext.P2 assessment order pertaining to five different assessment years. Considering the facts and figures, the liability fixed by the appellate authority, as per Ext.P7 while granting the interim order is only to an extent of about 20 % of the total amount, stated as due as per Ext.P2 assessment order. While passing the order, the second respondent has also discussed the sequence of events and the various aspects borne out by the materials on record available and this being the position, it cannot but be stated that the appellate authority has arrived at the finding with proper application of mind. There is absolutely no question WP (C) No. 21063 of 2009 : 2 : of irregularity, much less any illegality, in Ext.P7 order passed and that it is well supported with the reasons. 3. However, considering the persuasive submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the liability fixed on the petitioner to furnish security for the balance amount as specified in Ext.P7, it is made clear that, the petitioner is permitted to furnish the same in such other appropriate form including by furnishing bank guarantee or cash deposit or still by way of immovable properties as provided under Rule 19 of the relevant Rules. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd