IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19022 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ A.VELUSAMY, PREMIER GATES AND GRILLS, NADATHARA, THRISSUR BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALIDHARAN (AROOR) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (AUDIT ASSESSMENT), SPECIAL CIRCLE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR,PIN.680 003. 2. THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, CAMP SITTING AT PALAKKAD. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 19022 OF 2008 M ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Exts.P1 and P2 assessment orders. He also challenges Ext.P6 interim order passed by the 2nd respondent and seeks a direction to pass orders on the Interlocutory Applications for stay filed by the petitioner afresh. 2. I heard learned Government Pleader also. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already remitted 25% of the disputed demand, when appeals were pending before the first appellate authority. But, as per Ext.P6, the petitioner was directed to pay a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and to furnish security for the balance amount for granting stay. The rate of tax payable by the petitioner is only at 4%, he submits. He has already remitted 25%. Therefore, the direction to pay Rs.2,00,000/- is not justified, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is WPC.19022/08 : 2 : not in dispute the total liability amounts to Rs.17 lakhs. In such circumstances, the direction to pay Rs.2,00,000/- cannot be treated as illegal and arbitrary and it does not warrant interference. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that he may be given one month's time to pay the amount. I think the plea of the petitioner is reasonable and he can be granted some time to comply with Ext.P6. I do not entertain the challenge against Exts.P1 and P2 because the matter is already pending before the appellate authority. However, the petitioner is granted one month's time from today to comply with the conditions in Ext.P6. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE