IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 30336 of 2011(N) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S.THOMSON SURGICALS(P)LTD. NATTUKAL, MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD DIST, REP.BY ELSAMMA THOMAS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE-I MANNARKKAD, 2. ASST.COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD - 678 001. 3. INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD - 678 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VPV WPCNO.30336/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF C FORMS OBTAINED FROM THE PETITIONER'S HEAD OFFICE. EXT.P1(A): COPY OF C FORMS OBTAINED FROM THE PETITIONER'S HEAD OFFICE. EXT.P1(B): COPY OF C FORMS OBTAINED FROM THE PETITIONER'S HEAD OFFICE. EXT.P1(C): COPY OF C FORMS OBTAINED FROM THE PETITIONER'S HEAD OFFICE. EXT.P2: COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF ORDER IN KVATA NO.344/10 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE VPV S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 30336 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order passed by the 2nd respondent appellate authority under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act in an appeal filed by the petitioner against an assessment order, by which, for granting stay of recovery of the disputed tax, a condition of payment of 30% of the disputed tax has been imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner contends that in similar appeals the very same appellate authority had earlier passed Ext.P6 order remanding the matter to the assessing authority for re-examining the veracity of the C forms submitted by the appellant in that appeal. According to the petitioner, there is every likelihood of the appellate authority allowing the petitioner's appeal also, and therefore it was unjust on the part of the 2nd respondent to impose payment of 30% as a condition for stay. In view of the averment in the writ petition that Ext.P6 is in a similar appeal, I directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions as to whether Ext.P6 order is in a similar appeal as that of the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader today submits that there is substantial difference between the two appeals and that is exactly why the very same appellate authority directed the petitioner to pay 30% of the tax as a condition for grant of stay. w.p.c.30336/11 - : 2 :- 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. I have gone through Ext.P5 stay order. I am of opinion that in passing that order, the appellate authority has not committed any error of jurisdiction. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with Ext.P5 order. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be granted one month's time to pay 30% as directed in Ext.P5 order. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge