IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 28109 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M/S.CAPITAL STEELS, DEALERS IN CEMENT, T.B.ROAD, CHANGANASSERY. REPRESENTED BY K.H.MOHAMMED YUSUF, S/O.LATE HUSAIN, RESIDING AT KOONUPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.B.ROAD, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOMY GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, DEPARTMENT, THEVALLY P.O., KOLLAM. 2. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM. 3. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AUDIT ASST) OFFICE OF THE DY.COMMISSIONER (AUDIT ASST.) COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO TAXES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 28109 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 2. Petitioner challenges Exts.P14 and P15, seeks a direction to consider the appeals without insisting payment of 50% of tax and furnishing security for the balance amount and to direct the appellate authority to pass fresh orders on the stay petitions. 3. According to the petitioner, the main issue involved in the statutory appeals pending before the first respondent is whether the amount covered under credit notes issued by a supplier can be reckoned for the purpose of assessment. It is pointed out that there is a Circular earlier issued by the Government. According to the petitioner, the Act itself was amended. 4. On a perusal of Exts.P14 and P15 orders, I would think that the appellate authority has not borne in mind the principle declared by this court in the decision reported in Supreme Electrical Engineering (P) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (2008(3) KLT 805) Accordingly, I am unable to sustain Exts.P14 and P15 orders. WPC. 28109/2008. 2 Accordingly, Exts.P14 and P15 orders are quashed and there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass fresh orders on the the stay applications filed by the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Proceedings will be kept in abeyance till a decision is taken as aforesaid. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb