IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6637 of 2010(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- P.M.ASHRAF, 'BISMI BRICKS', SREEBHOOTHAPURAM, PEEDIYEKKAL HOUSE, SREEMOOLANAGARAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALIDHARAN (AROOR) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALUVA. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERRY. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.6637 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner, challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the first respondent, filed Ext.P6 appeal along with Ext.P7 application for stay. After considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, Ext.P9 interim order was passed by the appellate authority whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- as a pre-condition to avail the benefit of interim stay; simultaneously making it clear that the petitioner shall furnish sufficient security for the balance amount during the pendency of the appeal. 2. The petitioner is challenging the said condition imposed by the appellate authority stating that there cannot be any tax liability in view of the facts and circumstances revealed from the materials on record. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for W.P.(C) No.6637 of 2010 - 2 - the respondents, with reference to Ext.P1 Shop Inspection Report, submits that the petitioner had not maintained any books of accounts or sale bills at the time of inspection and they were not produced at the time of inspection. It is also pointed out, referring to the entry against column No.5, that even at the time of inspection, there were much fully finished items (1,56,712 Nos.) and semi finished items of 49,361 Nos. which by itself was very much enough to sustain the incriminating circumstances. The plea raised by the petitioner in the writ petition is mainly with regard to the condition imposed upon him and seeking to have the appeal itself finalized and to be disposed of. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner with specific reference to the relevant provisions of law submits that the suppression as alleged from the part of the petitioner is not correct or sustainable and that the appellate authority ought not to have imposed any condition upon the petitioner. This Court is not satisfied with the submission made from the part of the W.P.(C) No.6637 of 2010 - 3 - petitioner, nor proposes to go into the merits of the case. 5. Going by the admitted facts and figures that are discussed in Ext.P9, it is very much revealed that the appellate authority has considered the case put forward by the petitioner and the condition has been imposed so as to avail the benefit of interim stay referring to the reasons given therein. The condition now imposed upon the petitioner cannot be stated as arbitrary, nor can Ext.P9 order be stated as a non speaking order. In the above circumstances, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed. Taking note of the fact that the time stipulated in Ext.P9 for effecting the payment is already over, the petitioner is granted a further period of two weeks to satisfy the said requirement. It is made clear that the observation made in this judgment shall not stand in the way of the appellate authority while disposing of the appeal on merits. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns