IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2009 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35144 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAGESH MANU.S.R., AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, SANTHIMADAM, N.PARUR, PROPRIETOR M/S.SANTHIMADOM TRADE WAYS, KOTTAPPADY, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.PRADEEP KUMAR SRI.K.S.RAJESH SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.35144 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P5 and P6 interim orders issued by the 1st respondent appellate authority. The petitioner had challenged Ext.P1 and P2 assessments in appeal before the 1st respondent, as evidenced from Ext.P3 and P4. Ext.P5 and P6 are the interim orders issued on the stay petitions filed along with those appeals. Contention of the petitioner is that while granting interim order the appellate authority had imposed condition for payment of 40% of the tax in dispute, without any proper reasoning. 2. Going by contents of Ext.P5 and P6 it is revealed that the appellate authority had adverted to all the contentions raised in the appeals. On evaluating merits of such contentions, it is found that there are some areas wherein interference is warranted. But it is observed that the extent of interference can be ascertained only by conducting detailed hearing of the appeal, and only on perusal of the assessment records. Having found that a prima facie case is established, the appellate authority had decided to grant conditional stay. Therefore 40% payment is insisted. W.P.(C).35144/09-K 2 3. Ext.P5 and P6 cannot be termed as orders passed without application of mind. Detailed advertence to the contentions and proper reasoning for granting stay is explicit on the fact of Ext.P5 and P6 orders. The condition imposed while granting stay, is a matter totally coming within the discretion of the appellate authority. Having found that prima facie case is established which need elaborate examination, the appellate authority found it desirable to put a condition. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety with respect to Ext.P5, nor there is any lack of jurisdiction or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. Hence interference with respect to the impugned orders is not warranted. 4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence for extension of time stipulated for complying with the conditions. Having considered the fact that petitioner had challenged the interim orders in this writ petition, I am inclined to grant extension of the time stipulated for complying with the condition, till 31.12.2009. 5. The 1st respondent is also directed to take steps for an early disposal of the appeals, on compliance of the interim orders. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb