IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 18TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 4461 of 2008(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S. CHETTINAD CEMENT CORPORATION LTD., ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER (MARKETING), M.SIVARAMAN. BY ADV. SRI.K.SRIKUMAR SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT), SPECIAL CIRCLE-II, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.4461 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P5 order is under challenge. By this order, conditional order of stay had been granted. 2. Previously, the petitioner had filed W.P.(C) No.35910/2007 and that writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment directing that the appellate authority should consider the stay petition expeditiously. It is in pursuance to the said judgment, the appellate authority considered the matter and passed Ext.P5 order. By this order, stay has been granted on condition that the petitioner remits 1/3rd of the balance amount due and furnishes security for the remaining to the satisfaction of the assessment authority. It is challenging this order, the writ petition has been filed. 3. The contention urged before the appellate authority which is reiterated before me is that the addition made by the furnishing Authority was excessive. This argument has been appreciated by the appellate authority and it is on that basis the WPC 4461/2008 2 appellate authority has found that a prima facie case for a conditional order of stay has been made out by the petitioner. It is thereafter that the appellate authority by exercising his discretionary power granted stay on condition that the petitioner remits 1/3rd of the balance amount due. 4. I do not find any perversity with the order warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the time for compliance with the order impugned will stand extended by ten days. 5. Petitioner seeks a further direction to consider Ext.P6 application made by them for refund of the amount mentioned therein. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the application is pending before the first respondent. As stated by the petitioner, if Ext.P6 application is pending before the first respondent, the first respondent shall pass orders on Ext.P6 expeditiously as possible and at any rate within four weeks of a production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE csl