IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2010 / 23RD ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21794 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- C.A.PAUL,THE DYNASTY,OPP.K.S.R.T.C, BUS STATION,THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. MR. HARISANKAR V. MENON MS. MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER(LT), PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,KOLLAM. 3. INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,PATHANAMTHITTA. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 21794 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 14th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of Exts. P5 and P6 interim orders passed by the second respondent, whereby the petitioner has been directed to satisfy 50% of the amount due under the 'assessment order' and 'penalty orders' and to furnish adequate security for the balance amount to the satisfaction of the assessing authority within two weeks, for availing the benefit of interim stay during pendency of the appeal. 2. The sequence of events shows that, Exts. P1 and P2 orders passed by the first respondent, fixing the liability in respect of relevant assessment years, were subjected to challenge by filing Exts. P3 and P4 appeals, along with interlocutory application for stay. It is after considering the prayer for interim stay, Exts. P5 and P6 orders have been passed by the appellate authority, imposing condition as above, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition.. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, while passing the interim orders, imposing condition, the appellate authority has not considered the contentions raised by the petitioner, vide Ext. P7. The learned counsel further submits that, the petitioner had W.P. (C) No. 21794 of 2010 : 2 : preferred Ext.P7 statement of objection even before dispatching Exts.P1 and P2 order, though no acknowledgment card has been produced along with Writ Petition. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that, the sequence of events narrated in Ext. P1 and P2 shows that, eventhough the petitioner was given several opportunities, but for seeking and obtaining several adjournments, the petitioner did not make use of the same and that the matter was finalized only in accordance with relevant provisions of law. It was after considering the entire facts and events that the appellate authority chose to pass interim order vide Exts. P5 and P6 directing the petitioner to satisfy 50% of the liability, which is not assailable under any circumstance, submits the learned Government Pleader. 5. Taking note of the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is very much ready and willing to clear the tax liability, as taken note of by the appellate authority while passing Ext. P5, this Court finds that, the condition imposed fixing 50 % of the liability with regard to the penalty is slightly on the higher side and hence the same is scaled down and modified to 1/3rd and to furnish security for the balance amount. No interference is warranted with regard to the stipulation contained in Ext. P6 pertaining to the assessment. The time W.P. (C) No. 21794 of 2010 : 3 : to satisfy the conditions in Exts. P5 and P6 is already over, the petitioner is granted a further period of 10 days in this regard. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd