IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2010 / 12TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 21983 of 2010(W) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.T.GEORGE, PROPRIETOR, SOUTHERN SUPARI COMPANY, MAIN ROAD, PAZHANJI, KUNNAMKULAM. BY DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI. SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), COMMERCIAL TAXEX DEPARTMENT, SPECIAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPELLALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 21983 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of the condition imposed vide Ext.P10 order passed by the Appellate Authority directing the petitioner to satisfy 30% of the disputed liability and to furnish security for the balance amount in respect of the assessment year 2005-06 (CST), so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the appeal. 2. Many a ground has been raised by the petitioner with reference to the legal position and the sequence of events. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the question considered by the appellate authority is much with reference to the materials on record and that no interference is warranted under any circumstance. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, as borne by Ext.P7 assessment order, the incriminating circumstances have been described in detail, whereby it has been stated that, instead of submitting different F forms in respect of the different periods, the petitioner submitted a 'single F Form', which is totally contrary to the statutory prescription. When this was pointed out, the petitioner preferred 'fresh F forms' without getting earlier F Form cancelled. It was also noted by the assessing authority that the petitioner 2 WP(C) No. 21983/2010 had already satisfied tax at the rate of 4% in respect of the 'alleged stock transfer' and it was after considering the entire facts and circumstances, the assessment was completed, which in turn is subjected to challenge by filing appeal before the appellate authority. 3. The appellate authority after considering the contents of impugned orders as well as grounds by the petitioner in the memorandum of appeal considered the I.A. for stay and it was accordingly, that the interim stay was granted, subject to the satisfaction of the disputed liability to an extent of 30% as contained in Ext.P10. The only question is to be looked is whether Ext.P10 has been passed in a mechanical manner or without proper application of mind. Going by the materials on record, this Court finds that there is proper application of mind and that the condition imposed is not arbitrary or illegal. However, since the time stipulated in Ext.P1 to satisfy the condition is already over, the petitioner is granted a further period of 'two weeks' to satisfy the condition as aforesaid. In the above circumstance, interference is declined. The Writ Petition fails and dismissed accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dncs