IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2008 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1929 W.P(C).No. 7279 of 2008(N) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- M/S. JOHARS PRIVATE LIMITED, MARKET ROAD, COCHIN-682 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR.PRAVESH PRATAP JOHAR. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA SRI.TERRY V.JAMES RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AA), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (AA), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 7279 OF 2008 N ==================== Dated this the 17th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P7. 2. By Ext.P7, stay has been granted on condition that the petitioner remits 50% of the tax and furnish security for the balance. 3. The contention that is raised by the petitioner is that the assessment order in question is of 2005-06 and that the 5th proviso to Sub Section 3 of Sub Section 11 was introduced only by Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 1/7/06 and therefore, the said provision has no relevance in so far as the assessment order in question is concerned. This has been raised in Ground No.3(i) of the memorandum of appeal. However, in the statement filed, the contention raised by the respondent is that the said amendment is clarificatory in nature and is effective from 01/04/2005. 4. In view of the pendency of appeal, I do not think this court is called upon to decide on the merits of the contention now raised and I leave it to the appellate authority to decide on the contention regarding the applicability of the aforesaid proviso. 5. Coming to the validity or otherwise of Ext.P5, I notice that it was taking note of the contention that the appellate authority was satisfied WPC 7279/08 :2 : that the petitioner was entitled to a conditional stay and it is in exercise of the discretionary power that he has granted the stay on payment of 50% of the tax due. I do not think that Ext.P7 is vitiated for any perversity warranting interference. 6. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. 7. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner seeks two weeks time for complying with Ext.P7 order. Considering this submission, I direct that time for payment ordered in Ext.P7 will stand enlarged till 29/3/2008. Needless to say that the appellate authority shall expedite the hearing of the appeal. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp