IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22186 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- KERALA CURRY HOUSE, PMR ARCADE,2/76BCDEF,CANAL ROAD, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE ,REPRESENTED BY ITS BINU GEORGE, S/O T.K. GEORGE,AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDI NG AT THEKKEVEETTIL, KRISHNAGIRI, MEENANGADI, WAYA NAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE SALES TAX OFFICER (RECOVERY), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPA RTMENT, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, O FFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CO MMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 22186 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 5th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved of the condition imposed by the appellate authority/second respondent directing to deposit 50 % of the amount allegedly due vide Ext.P5 order granting interim stay pending consideration of the appeal. 2. The learned Government Pleader, with reference to Ext.P2 assessment order submits that, the petitioner is not a registered dealer and that the incriminating circumstances were unearthed during the course of investigation conducted by the Intelligence Officer. It is also brought to light that, the necessary 'books of accounts' were not maintained, despite the fact that the dealer had declared the sales turnover of Rs. 12,50,142/- for the year 2007-'08. It is submitted that, it was only after satisfying with the actual facts and figures, that the assessing authority passed assessment order, which in turn was subjected to challenge by preferring Ext.P4 appeal before the second respondent. 3. After considering the materials on record, the appellate authority/second respondent granted interim stay, on depositing 50 % of the amount, as borne by Ext.P5. It is also a fact that, after referring to the contentions taken by the petitioner, the appellate authority observed WP (C) No. 22186 of 2009 : 2 : that, the petitioner/appellant had admitted the irregularities noted and the offence was compounded departmentally; in lieu of the prosecution. It was after considering the position as above, that the appellate authority thought it fit to grant an interim order of stay, subject to the condition as imposed vide Ext.P5. 4. Going by the facts and figures, it is seen that the appellate authority has discussed the relevant aspects and the impugned order has been passed with proper application of mind. No interference is called for. The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd