IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 27811 of 2011(B) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S.GLOBAL SPICES (P) LTD., NIDA, MENONPARA, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.KRISHNANUNNI. BY ADVS. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, IIND CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-678 001. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-678 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DS WP(C).No. 27811 of 2011(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2008-09 DATED 24.3.2011. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.5.2011. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.5.2011. EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE EARLY HEARING PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.5.2011. EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2008-09 DATED 29.9.2011. EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2008-09 DATED 22/9/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE DS S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 27811 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 20th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order passed in a stay petition filed by the petitioner along with an appeal filed against Ext.P1 assessment order. By Ext.P5 order, as a condition for stay, the petitioner was directed pay 30% of the balance tax due. The petitioner contends that Ext.P5 is not in accordance with the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Supreme Electrical Engineering Private Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, 2008 (3) KLT 805. He points out that in Ext.P5 itself the appellate authority has found that there is a strong case for the petitioner and despite the same, directed payment of 30% of the balance tax due. The petitioner submits that in view of the Division Bench decision, the appellate authority ought to have stated sufficient reasons to direct the petitioner to pay 30% of the balance tax due. According to the petitioner, Ext.P5 does not say so. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. I have gone through Ext.P5. In Ext.P5, the appellate authority has found that there is a prima facie case for the petitioner to be considered. After considering the same also, the petitioner has been directed to pay only 30% of the balance tax. I do not think that w.p.c.27811/11 - : 2 :- there is any error of jurisdiction committed by the appellate authority in passing Ext.P5 order. I find that Ext.P5 order has been passed after taking into account the principles laid down by this Court in the Division Bench decision. If the petitioner's contentions are accepted in toto, the appellate authority could have disposed of the appeal itself. At the stage of stay petition, the appellate authority can only consider prima facie case, which has been considered. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with Ext.P5 order. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner seeks two weeks' time to comply with Ext.P5 order. The petitioner is permitted to comply with Ext.P5 order within two weeks. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge