IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34060 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M/S CAPITAL STEELS, DEALERS IN CEMENT, T.B. ROAD, CHANGANASSERY, REPRESENTED BY K.H. MOHAMMED YUSUF, S/O. LATE HUSIAN RESIDING AT KOONUPARAMBIL HOUSE, T.B. ROAD, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOMY GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS, COMMERCIAL TAXES, DEPARTMENT, THEVALLY P.O., KOLLAM. 2. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM. 3. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AUDIT ASST.) OFICE OF THE DY.COMMISSIONER (AUDIT ASST.) COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO TAXES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.34060 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exts.P13 and P14. Ext.P13 is an order passed in respect of the assessment year 2005-2006 granting stay on condition petitioner pays one third of the balance tax and furnishes security. Ext.P14 relates to assessment year 2006-2007. Stay is granted on similar conditions. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Jomy George attacks both the orders as falling foul of the dicta of the Division Bench decision reported in Supreme Electrical Engineering (P) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (2008(3) K.L.T. 805). 2. I heard learned Government Pleader also. 3. As far as Ext.P14 order goes, I feel that the petitioner is justified in impugning the order as apart from setting out the contentions, no reasons are given. In such circumstances, Ext.P14 cannot be sustained. Ext.P14 is quashed and there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider the matter afresh and take a decision thereon in accordance with law within three weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. WPC.34060/2008. 2 4. As far as Ext.P13 goes, it cannot be said on a perusal of the order that no reasons at all are given. This court will not sit in judgment as if it were an appellate authority. It cannot be said to be an order, which is liable to be interfered with even on the basis of the dicta of the Division Bench decision. Of course learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the authority must be deemed to have accepted the contentions of the petitioner based on Circular No.41/2007 and the declaration made available and thereafter the amount will only be Rs.Ten Lakhs. Now the amount he is called upon to pay is one third of Rs.19,00,000/-. The appellate authority has found that whether the difference in tax as per the original and revised return amounting to Rs.10,86,566/- is the tax collected by the appellant can be ascertained only on verification of books of accounts and sale bills. On a totality of the circumstances, I do not think that the petitioner has made out a case for interference with Ext.P13. Accordingly I reject the prayer in relation to Ext.P13. But the petitioner is granted three weeks time from today to comply with Ext.P13 order. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb