IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4537 of 2010(N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER : ------------------ M/S. SHWAS HOMES (P) LTD., MYSTIC HEIGHTS, VYTTILA, KANIAMPUZHA ROAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR.SREENI PARAMESWARAN. BY ADVS. SMT.S.K.DEVI MR.SANTHOSH P. ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS : ---------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC), DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.K.GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JVT P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 4537 of 2010-N ---------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of the condition imposed by the appellate authority while passing Ext.P5 interim order of stay, directing the petitioner to satisfy 50% of the liability and furnish 'security bond' for the balance amount before the assessing authority within two weeks, so as to avail the benefit of interim order of stay during the pendency of the appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P3 appeal has been preferred challenging the action pursued by the assessing authority and that there is every chance for the appellate authority to remand the matter. It is also the case of the petitioner that, once the compounding application is allowed, there will be no liability for the petitioner and that if the petitioner is compelled to satisfy the requirement under Ext.P5, irreparable loss, injury and hardship will be resulted to the petitioner, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. W.P(C) No. 4537 of 2010-N 2 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, with specific reference to the contents of Ext.P5 submits that, it can never be regarded as a 'mechanical order' in view of the detailed discussion of the facts and events. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, referring to the observations made by the appellate authority while passing Ext.P5, that the dealer had first opted for non compounding on 11.8.2008, then opted compounding on 7.9.2009 and again opted non compounding on 25.9.2009 by filing revised return. Detailed discussion of the facts and figures has also been made in the said order before imposing the condition directing the petitioner to satisfy 50% of the liability as aforesaid. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that Ext.P5 order passed by the appellate authority does not suffer from any irregularity; much less any illegality. However, considering the fact that the amount involved is quite substantial, this Court finds it fit and proper to modify the condition, whereby the liability now cast upon the petitioner to remit 50% be reduced to 25%. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit 25% of the liability and furnish sufficient security bond for the balance W.P(C) No. 4537 of 2010-N 3 amount before the Assessing authority. However, since the time originally stipulated by the appellate authority vide Ext.P5 order is already over, the deposit as above shall be made within a further period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab