IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14914 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., ERNAKULAM TERRITORY (RETAIL) OFFICE, IRUMPANAM,KOCHI 682 309,REP.BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER (FINANCE)-SRI.K.VENKATESAN. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (AA), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (AA), COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ASSESSMENT I,SPECIAL CIRCLE II, COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM. 4. V A T TRIBUNAL,COMMERCIAL TAXES COMPLEX, THEVARA,ERNAKULAM. 5. THE MANAGER,HDFC BANK, RAVIPURAM BRANCH,ERNAKULAM. 6. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., AMBALAMUGHAL,ERNAKULAM. 7. INSPEPCTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (RECOVERY), COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER Mr.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 14914 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner, a Central Government Company engaged in the refining and supply of petroleum products in Kerala, has approached this Court challenging the Ext.P1 order passed by the first respondent, casting a huge liability of more than Rs.127,19,43,674/- upon the petitioner. The petitioner availed the statutory remedy by way of appeal before the third respondent, along with a petition for stay, wherein interim order was passed directing to satisfy 50% of the liability; which was challenged by filing WP(C) No.36501/2008, where interference was declined by the learned Single Bench. This made the petitioner to file the Writ Appeal 26/2009. Observing that the interim order passed by the appellate authority is not a 'speaking one', Ext.P2 judgment was passed dispensing with the liability to effect any interim payment and directing the appellate authority to consider and finalise the appeal as specified. Pursuant to this, the appellate authority passed Ext.P3 order, whereby the original liability fixed by the first respondent was brought down to nearly 50%. This in turn has been challenged again by filing further appeal before the 4th respondent/Tribunal. The petitioner has also filed an I.A. for stay along with the appeal. After considering the facts and figures, the Tribunal WPC NO.14914/2009 2 passed Ext.P6 order observing that the matter required to be considered with reference to the relevant records and accordingly, interim stay was granted on condition that the petitioner remitted 1/3 of the amount covered by the impugned order and on furnishing security for the balance amount within four weeks. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the appeal itself having been posted for final hearing on 07.07.2009, there is no point in directing the petitioner to remit 1/3 of amount; more so when the assessment, according to the petitioner, is totally alien to the statutory prescription. 3. Heard learned Government Pleader as well. 4. It is to be noted that the reason for interference made by the Division Bench of this Court vide Ext.P2, (when the petitioner was directed to remit 50% of the amount as a condition for granting stay during the pendency of the appeal) was more because of the fact that the merits of the petitioner's case were not seen considered, as specifically observed in the very first part of Ext.P2 judgment. After the said verdict, the entire merits were discussed by the appellate authority, leading to Ext.P3 order, which in turn was subjected to challenge by filing further appeal before the Tribunal. Ext.P6 interim order has been passed by the Tribunal, taking note of the actual facts and figures and it does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. WPC NO.14914/2009 3 5. However, taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the original liability fixed by the first respondent at Rs.127.19 crores vide Ext.P1 order was brought down to nearly 50% vide Ext.P3 order and further since, according to the petitioner, there is every possible chance to have it wiped off, in toto, this Court finds that interest of justice will stand satisfied, if the petitioner is directed to remit only '¼' of the demand, instead of 1/3 as ordered by the Tribunal vide Ext.P6 and on furnishing 'security' for the balance amount within four weeks from today. This shall be complied with, by the petitioner on or before the 25th of this month. On producing the proof, the appeal preferred by the petitioner shall be considered and finalised by the 4th respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) dnc