IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 4787 of 2011(W) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- VIKRANT TYRES LTD., (JK TYRES & INDUSTRIES LTD.) MARY MATHA SHOPPING COMPLEX, L.P.J.ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN-682025. REP. BY ITS SENIOR COMMERCIAL OFFICER MR. SURENDRA BABU, PETITIONER. BY SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.SAJI VARGHESE SMT.MARIAM MATHAI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(ASSESSMENT) COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE-1, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-18. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-15. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-30. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 4787 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ext.P5 common interim order passed by the second respondent on stay petitions filed along with appeals pertaining to assessment for the years 2002-03 and 2003-04, is the subject matter under challenge in this writ petition. By the impugned order, the appellate authority had granted stay subject to condition insisting payment of 50% of the total amounts due as per demand notice and also on furnishing security bond for the balance 50%. 2. Under normal circumstances, this Court may not be inclined to interfere with an interim order which will be issued in exercise of discretion of the appellate authority. But in the case at hand, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that, out of the total liability of approximately an amount of ` 96 lakhs, an amount of ` 54 lakhs pertains to additional sales tax charged at 15% for the period from April to June 2003. It is the contention that, for 2 W.P.(C).No. 4787 of 2011 the said period there was no liability for additional sales tax, going by the relevant provisions under section 5D of the KGST Act. Therefore, insistence for payment of 50% of the amounts is unreasonable and arbitrary, is the contention. It is further contended that even though the appellate authority had illustrated such a ground raised, it had not applied mind nor had considered such contention in its real perspective. If the dispute pertaining to the liability of the additional tax is deducted, the amount will come around ` 42 lakhs only, which is less than 50% of the total demand. Hence the petitioner seeks interference of this Court in quashing Ext.P5 order. 3. Heard ; learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents. Considering the contentions as stated above and on perusal of the impugned order, I notice that the specific contention regarding liability for payment of additional sales tax has not been properly adverted to or the merits of such contention was not taken into consideration while passing the interim order. Hence I am 3 W.P.(C).No. 4787 of 2011 of the opinion that, the condition was stipulated in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind. 4. However, considering the fact that the appeals are pending disposal, I am not proposing to remit the matter to the appellate authority for passing fresh orders. On the other hand, I am of the considered opinion that interest of justice will be served if a less rigorous condition is imposed for granting stay till the disposal of the appeals, taking note of the liability pertaining to the additional sales tax which is in dispute. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider and dispose of appeals filed by the petitioner against Exts.P1 and P3 orders, after affording an effective opportunity of hearing, as early as possible within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. Till such time recovery of amounts covered under those orders shall be kept in abeyance subject to condition imposed, in modification of Ext.P5 that, if the petitioner 4 W.P.(C).No. 4787 of 2011 remits a sum of ` 20 lakhs and furnish security bond for the balance amount within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, realisation of amounts covered under Exts.P1 and P3 shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the appeals. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/