IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7171 of 2008(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ O.K.RAVINDRAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.OKAY TRADE LINKS, DURGA TALKIES BUILDINGS, P.O.EZHILODE, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AA), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KANNUR. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ======================= W.P.(C) No. 7171 of 2008 (D) ======================= Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT On an earlier occasion the petitioner had filed W.P.(C) No.195/2008 in which this Court by Ext.P7 directed consideration of stay petition filed by the petitioner alongwith the appeal. It was specifically stated that while orders are passed, relevant materials including Ext.P2 will be taken into account. 2. In pursuance to the said judgment the stay petition filed by the petitioner was considered by the Appellate Authority and Ext.P8 order has now been passed. By this order petitioner is called upon to remit 50% of the amount due and furnish security for the balance amount to the satisfaction of the assessing authority and it is challenging this order this writ petition is filed. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is a mechanical one and W.P.(C) No. 7171/2008/D -2- that no reference is made to the materials on record including Ext.P2. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand submits that Ext.P2 is only a certificate and that the petitioner did not produce any documentary evidence in support of the contentions. 2. Prima facie it is true that only document produced was Ext.P2. Though it is true that it is upto the petitioner to prove the correctness of his contentions if the Appellate Authority has ignored Ext.P2 while passing Ext.P8 order the matter should be examined. A reading of the impugned order shows that there is substance in what is contended by the petitioner. In my view the Appellate Authority ought to have considered Ext.P2. 3. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, I am inclined to intervene in Ext.P8 by modifying the said order in the following manner: The stay granted to the Appellate Authority will continue on condition that the petitioner remits 1/3rd of the amount mentioned in Ext.P6 notice of demand and furnish security for the balance amount to the satisfaction of the assessing authority. W.P.(C) No. 7171/2008/D -3- The deposit shall be made and security furnished before 14.3.2008. The writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE jp