IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 16386 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.HADEED STEELS (P) LTD., NIDA, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD-678 623, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.HAMZAKUTTY. BY ADV. SRI.K.SRIKUMAR SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER [KVAT], SPECIAL CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES [APPEALS], ERNAKULAM. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 16386 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P3 interim order passed by the appellate authority, whereby the petitioner is directed to satisfy 50% of the disputed amount so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the statutory appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that absolutely no reason has been given while passing Ext.P3 order and that the condition made is simply on the basis of 'two check post detentions' which by itself cannot be the sole reason for mulcting this much of liability on the petitioner. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Going by the materials on record, it is revealed that the basic contention raised by the petitioner has been taking note of while passing the interim order. It has been observed by the appellate authority that the addition made by the assessing authority is only by 15% to cover up the omissions and suppressions and 75% of the same is under Section 6(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. It was after referring to the facts and figures as above, that the appellate authority chose to impose the condition, enabling the petitioner to have the benefit of stay during the pendency of appeal. This being the position, it cannot be said that there is no application of mind on 2 WP(C) No. 16386/2010 the part of the appellate authority while passing the interim order. However, considering the nature of the contentions and the extent of liability, this Court finds that the extent of the condition imposed is slightly on the higher side and this Court finds that the interest of justice could be met, if the petitioner is permitted to have the benefit of interim stay on condition that the petitioner satisfies '1/3' of the disputed liability, instead of 50% now ordered by the appellate authority. 5. In the above circumstance, the condition imposed by the appellate authority vide Ext.P3 is varied and the petitioner is permitted to have the benefit of interim stay on condition that the petitioner deposits '1/3' of the disputed liability and furnishes security for the balance amount within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. On satisfying the liability as above, the 2nd respondent is further directed to consider and pass final orders on Ext.P2 series appeals in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner 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