IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14246 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ TOJO MATHEW,AGED 35, S/O.MATHEW,PULIKOTTIL HOUSE, ARANATTUKARA VILLAGE,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PROPRIETOR,M/S.HI-MECH VENTING SERVICES, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER APPEALS, I.S.PRESS RAOD,ERNAKULAM. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES,THRISSUR. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.14246 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P7. Ext.P7 is an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner granting stay of collection of tax subject to the petitioner remitting 50% of the balance amount due on or before 28.3.2008 and furnish security for the balance amount to the satisfaction of the second respondent. The contention of the petitioner ofcourse is that the assessing authority wrongly assessed the rate of tax applicable at 12.5% whereas it should have been 4% . According to him, when the stay petition has been disposed of in a mechanical manner, the petitioner has a very strong case. 2. I heard learned Government Pleader also. 3. I do not think that the petitioner has made out a ground for interfering with the exercise of discretion by the appellate authority. The order in the stay petition cannot be treated as similar to the final disposal of the appeal. It is certainly open to the appellate authority to impose suitable condition in relation to the amount to be deposited. I feel that, in such circumstances, it may not be open to the petitioner to contend that the petitioner will be permitted to pay a lumpsum amount. WPC.14246/2008. 2 Nonetheless I feel that the petitioner can be given some time to pay the amount. Accordingly, while dismissing the writ petition, it is directed that Ext.P7 order shall be treated as having been complied with if the petitioner deposits 50% of the balance amount due within one month from today. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb