IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11011 of 2010(B) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- A. MUHAMMED MANSOOR, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. LATE P.K. KUNJUMOOSA, REHMANIYA MATCH FACTORY, CHAVASSERY, KANNUR. BY ADV. MR.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR. 3. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), THALASSERY. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.11011 of 2010-B ---------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the condition imposed by the appellate authority vide Ext.P5 directing the petitioner to remit 30% of the due amount and to furnish security for the balance amount so as to avail the benefit of interim stay, during the pendency of the appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the unsustainability of Exts.P1 and P2 orders in respect of the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 has been projected in detail in the appeal preferred before the first respondent. The position was also taken note of the said authority as referred to in the face sheet of Ext.P5, observing that the petitioner/appellant produced few C Forms seeking for further opportunity to produce the entire C Form declarations before the assessing authority. 3. The learned Government Pleader for the respondent submits that the factual position as narrated has very much been taken note of, while passing Ext.P5 order and the fact remains that W.P(C) No.11011 of 2010-B 2 the petitioner did not produce all the 'C' forms even before the appellate authority, but for a few 'C' forms praying that the petitioner might be given an opportunity to produce the same later before the assessing authority, which led to imposition of the condition. 4. In the said circumstances, this Court finds that Ext.P5 has been passed with proper application of mind and it does not call for any interference. However taking note of the fact that the time stipulated to satisfy the condition is over, the petitioner is permitted to effect the deposit within a further period of three weeks. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab W.P(C) No.11011 of 2010-B 3