IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18906 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ SSD OIL MILLS COMPANY LTD., 42, 1149A, C.B.TOWER,. K.K.PADMANABHAN ROAD, AYYAPPANKAVU-682018 REP. BY SRI.T.MADHAVAN PILLAI SALES MANAGER BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. ASST.COMMISSIONER (AA), O/O. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(AA), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM PIN-15 3. INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM AT KAKKANAD-31 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO X PARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, -1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 18906 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exts.P3 and P6. He seeks modification of Ext.P6 and disposal of the appeal. Ext.P3 is an assessment order under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. Against the same, petitioner preferred a statutory appeal. Thereon the appellate authority passed Ext.P6. Ext.P6 is an order granting stay on condition that the petitioner deposits 40% of the tax due and furnishes security for the balance amount. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. K.U.Vijayan and the learned Government Pleader. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that huge demand was made against the petitioner without any justification and when an appeal is filed, and interim order is sought the interim order is passed imposing condition of depositing 40% of the tax due, which actually comes to nearly Rs.94 Lakhs. He would submit that the petitioner is unable to pay the amount and the business will have to be closed down. He further submits that it is a case where the authority in passing Ext.P3 has assessed the petitioner to tax treating margarine and other products as coming under 1517.10. He submits that actually the product falls under 1516.20.91. WPC. 18906/2008. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner would made elaborate submissions pointing out that the finding by the assessing authority is totally unsustainable. 4. Learned Government Pleader points out on the other hand that the authority has passed a well considered order and found that the commodity is taxable at 12.5%. 5. I went through the orders Exts.P3 and P6 and I feel that it may not be open to me to interfere with these proceedings to hold that the view taken by the appellate authority in directing payment of 40% can be dubbed as arbitrary or illegal as contended for by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Balancing of competing interests is the hall mark of an interim order to be passed by an appellate authority. At any rate I do not think that the petitioner at this stage has established a case for interference. It is not as if the appellate authority, when it passes an interim order, has to discuss the points raised in the interim order threadbare. This is a process to be done when the appeal itself is considered. In such circumstances, the petitioner has not made out a case for interference with Ext.P6. 6. As far as Ext.P3 is concerned, having approached the appellate authority, I do not think that there is any justification for considering the question here. In such circumstances, I leave open all the WPC. 18906/2008. 3 contentions of the petitioner and decline jurisdiction. However, having regard to the facts, the petitioner is granted time till 20.7.2008 to comply with the conditions in Ext.P6. Subject to the same, the writ petition is dismissed. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb