IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31906 of 2011(K) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MARKOSE KUZHALNATTU, PROPRIETOR, SONIA TOURIST HOME & KUZHALNATTU JEWELLERY, KOOTHATTUKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA.686 661. 2. ASST.COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 682 013. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.31906/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1:-COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. EXT.P2:-COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 EXT.P3:-COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4:-COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P5:-COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------ WP(C)No. 31906 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 common order passed by the second respondent, in two stay petitions filed along with appeals filed by the petitioner against assessment orders passed by the first respondent, directing the petitioner to pay 50% of the demand for each year as a condition for granting stay. 2. According to the petitioner, while passing the said order, the second respondent has not complied with the directions issued by this court in various judgments in the matter of considering stay petitions in taxation matters. According to the petitioner, the appellate authority ought to have granted a full stay. WP(C)No. 31906 OF 2011 2 3. This is opposed by the learned Government Pleader who points out that elaborate reasons have been given in Ext. P5 as to why the stay is restricted to 50%. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. I have gone through Ext. P5 . In Ext. P5 adequate reasons have been stated as to why only a conditional stay has been granted. I do not find any error of jurisdiction in that order. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with Ext. P5 order. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall pay the 50% as directed in Ext.P5, in two instalments payable on 21-12-2011 and 21-1-2012. The condition regarding furnishing of security shall be complied with by the petitioner as directed. S.SIRI JAGAN mm JUDGE WP(C)No. 31906 OF 2011 3 WP(C)No. 31906 OF 2011 4