IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 316 of 2008(K) ------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.COCO LATEX EXPORTS PVT. LTD. CHUNGOM, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, LT.COL.MOHAN.V.ANDREWS(RETD) BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA SRI.TERRY V.JAMES RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT.) COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. DY.COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 316 OF 2008 K ===================== Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6. Aggrieved by Ext.P4 order of assessment for the year 2003-04, petitioner filed Ext.P5 appeal and stay petition. Considering the stay petition, the appellate authority has passed Ext.P6 order granting stay on condition that the petitioner remits 50% of the tax and furnishing security for the balance. It is challenging this order of the appellate authority, petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. Impugning Ext.P6 order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being a 100% export oriented unit, is entitled to exemption in view of SRO 1090/99. On going through Ext.P4 assessment order, I notice that though the benefit of exemption has been totally declined to the petitioner, no reasons have been stated. WPC 316/08 :2 : 3. Apart from this, petitioner also objects to the levy of interest in Ext.P4. It is submitted that though the assessment is in relation to the assessment year 2003-04, assessment has been completed only on 26/10/2007, however interest has been demanded from the beginning of the assessment year itself. This according to the petitioner is erroneous. 4. At this stage, since these are issues that are raised in the appeal, I do not wish to express on the merits of the contentions. Be that as it may, I feel that in the condition that is imposed in Ext.P6 requiring 50% of the remittance has to be confined to tax that is actually due from the petitioner in terms of Ext.P4. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition clarifying that deposit of 50% ordered in Ext.P6 shall only be of the tax that is found to be due from the petitioner in Ext.P4. The amount as above, shall be deposited by the petitioner within two weeks from today. The petitioner shall also furnish adequate security for the balance amount of tax and interest to the satisfaction of the assessing authority within the time ordered above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp