IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 1484 of 2010(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JAYARAJ N.J., T.C.18/100-2, THIRUMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (W.C.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DY.COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.KGOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 1484 of 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is before this Court challenging the condition imposed by the appellate authority vide Exts.P2, whereby the petitioner has been directed to satisfy 40% of the liability in respect of the assessment year 2008-09, during the pendency of the appeal, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action pursued by the assessing authority as well as the appellate authority are not correct or sustainable and as such, there is no basis for imposing the condition at all. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the matter is covered by the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, reported in Johnson & Johnson Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assmt.) [2009 (17) KTR 613 (Ker)],which however is sought to be distinguished by the learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the decision rendered a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in Prakash Jewellery and another Vs. State of Kerala and Alukkas Jewellery Vs. State of Kerala and another [2004 (12) KTR 543], who was a party to the decision rendered by the Division Bench. 4. The crucial aspect to be considered in this Writ Petition is as to WP(C) No.1484/2010 2 the sustainability of the 'condition' imposed by the appellate authority while passing the interim order of stay. It appears from the materials on record that the relevant facts and figures have been properly considered by the appellate authority, while granting interim stay, subject to the condition imposed and there is no illegality or any irregularity in any manner. The discussion of the case in Exts.P6 and P7 orders impugned herein clearly reveal that there is proper application of mind and as such no interference is called for. 5. In the above facts and circumstances, no interference is called for; and the Writ Petition is dismissed; however without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to agitate the matter in the appeal stated as pending consideration before the 2nd respondent. 6. Since the time stipulated in Exts.P6 and P7 to satisfy the condition has already expired, this Court permits the petitioner to satisfy the same within a further period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On satisfying the condition as above and on producing the requisite proof before the 2nd respondent, the appeals pending before the said respondent shall be considered in accordance with law and final orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months thereafter. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc