IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2008 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7292 of 2008(R) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- C.KAMALKUTTY, S/O.POCKER SAHIB, AGED 66 YEARS, CHERUTTY ANDAKATH, KVP'S VILLA, ASMAS, PERUVALATHUPARAMBA, PAISAI IRIKKUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY (SR.) SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, SALES TAX OFFICE, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR. 2. THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, UPSTAIRS OF UNION BANK OF INDIA, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT SECRETARY. 3. TAHSILDAR (RR), TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR-670 142. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 7292 OF 2008 R ==================== Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext.P5 order is under challenge. By this order, the 2nd respondent rejected the stay petition filed by the petitioner. A reading of Ext.P5 shows that the contention of the petitioner was that the case was not one of sale of machinery, but was only a transfer by a proprietory concern to a newly constituted partnership firm. The reason for rejection of the stay petition is that according to the 2nd respondent, petitioner had not established this contention by producing documents. 2. In this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this was only a transfer as contended before the Tribunal mainly relying on Ext.P8 partnership deed. However, I notice that this very document has been referred to by the appellate authority in Ext.P2 and despite this document, appellate authority had confirmed the assessment order rejecting the WPC 7292/08 :2 : contentions raised in this behalf. 3. Therefore, even if Ext.P8 was taken into account that alone would not have improved the case of the petitioner in any manner. Apart from that, even in the writ petition, petitioner has no other material to substantiate this contention. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, I have no reason to take a view different from the 2nd respondent as taken in Ext.P5. Petitioner submits that following Ext.P5, when steps were taken for the sale of the property as per Ext.P6, he has filed Ext.P7 objection. He would therefore request that Ext.P7 may be directed to be considered by the third respondent. If as a matter of fact Ext.P7 has been received, I have no reason to think that the same will not be dealt with in accordance with law. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp