IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2011 / 21ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18645 of 2011(E) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- K.P. INDRABALAN, PROPRIETOR, ROYAL INDRAPRESTHA, VALANJAVATTOM, THIRUVALLA. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)I, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM - 691 001. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARIAT (TAXES), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 18645/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18/01/2011 UNDER SECTION 45-A OF THE KGST ACT 1963 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/01/2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 18645 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 12th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext. P6 order, whereby the 2nd respondent imposed a condition of payment of 50% of the balance penalty as a condition for grant of stay in the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order imposing penalty. The petitioner challenges the same on the ground that the petitioner should have been given an absolute stay in the circumstances of the case. He would also take a stand that the 2nd respondent has not given sufficient reasons for imposing the condition. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. I am of opinion that there is nothing wrong in Ext. P6 order. While passing stay order, the appellate authority is not expected to give elaborate reasons for the decision. I am not satisfied that the 2nd respondent has exercised his discretion arbitrarily or illegally. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with Ext. P6 order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/