IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18446 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- JESSY THOMAS, PROPRIETRIX, ST.MARY'S WOOD INDUSTRIES, KUNDANOOR, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 304. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR SRI.JAIRAM.V.MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (A.A) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-30. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.18446 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P6. Ext.P6 is an order passed by the appellate authority under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act granting stay of payment of tax for the assessment year 2005-2006 on condition that the petitioner remits 40% of the amount due and furnishes security for the balance amount within one month from the date of the order. 2. Ext.P1 is an order of assessment passed by the assessing authority, against which the petitioner preferred appeal and also filed a stay application, in which Ext.P6 order came to be passed. Essentially it is the case of the petitioner that six grounds were taken for rejecting the books of accounts and to estimate turnover. It is the further case of the petitioner that in regard to each of these grounds the petitioner had given explanation. It is the case of the petitioner that there must be a nexus between the turnover arrived at and the materials presented in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.V.P.Sukumar infact referred to case law also in support of his contentions. 2. The authority has taken note of the fact that the petitioner had compounded the failure to maintain books of accounts by paying a sum WPC. 18446/2008. 2 of Rs.3000/-. The various grounds which have been taken, though answered, did not find favour by the assessing authority and the assessing authority has taken the view, which is ofcourse the matter pending consideration before the appellate authority. I do not propose to interfere at the interlocutory stage, when the appellate authority proceeds to pass interim order subjecting the stay granted to such conditions. Unless the conditions are found to be totally arbitrary or perverse or illegal, it is not for this court to sit as an appellate authority and substitute its views. Interlocutory order cannot be equated with the final order to be passed in a case where all the contentions of the party have to be discussed threadbare. In this case the appellate authority has found it fit to direct payment of 40%. I do not think that it can be said that this is a case where the authority has proceeded to pass an order in a mechanical manner. In such circumstances, leaving open all the contentions of the petitioner in the appeal, the writ petition is dismissed. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb