IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2011 / 10TH BHADRA 1933 WA.No. 1298 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.21522/2011 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------ M/S.ORION ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS, THADATHILPARAMBIL BUILDING, COLLECTRATE JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM-686 001, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.LEJU JOSE CHANDY. BY ADV. SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM-686 575. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, COCHIN-682 015. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM-686 002. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.1298 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 1st day of September, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to modify conditional stay orders issued by the first appellate authority. The appellant has filed appeals against penalty levied and tax assessed for different periods. The learned Single Judge took the view that discretion exercised by the appellate authority in regard to 50% ordered as condition for stay does not call for any modification. 2. Before us, counsel for the appellant repeated the same argument as raised before the Single Judge. We have heard the Government Pleader also. After hearing both sides and after going through the orders impugned and the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we do not think there is any scope for interference because without considering the dispute in detail on merit, we cannot modify the stay orders. If we consider the case on merit, then the appeal pending before the statutory authority will itself become infructuous. 2 We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, appellant is granted three equal monthly instalments to pay the 50% ordered under the stay orders, first of which will be paid on or before 26th of this month and the balance on or before the 26th of two succeeding months. Appeals will be heard and disposed of after making payments as above and thereafter recovery of the balance will be based on orders in the appeal. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge pms