IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2011 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33118 of 2011(L) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- V. ASHRAF, ARECANUT DEALER, MOOKKUTHALA, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (KVAT), SPECIAL CIRCLE, MALAPPURAM-676 505. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682 015. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MALAPPURAM AT MANJERI-676 121. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 33118 of 2011(L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2005-2006 DATED 28.02.2011(KVAT). EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2005-2006 DATED 28.02.2011(CST). EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05.04.2011.(CST). EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05.04.2011 (CST) EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2005-06 DATED 09.11.2011. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2005-06 DATED 01.06.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs S.SIRI JAGAN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)NO. 33118 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of December 2011 --------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order passed in a stay petition filed by the petitioner along with an appeal against assessment order before the second respondent, whereby as a condition for stay, the petitioner has been directed to pay 1/3rd of the amount due. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner has a very strong case on merits and therefore the second respondent ought to have granted full stay. He submits that Ext.P5 order has been passed without following the principles laid down by this Court in various decision regarding consideration of application for stay in taxation matters. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. I have gone through Ext.P5 also. I am satisfied that the second respondent has considered the matter in the right perspective. I do not find any infirmity whatsoever in the impugned order. Accordingly, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, . this writ petition dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be given one months time from today to pay the amount as per Ext.P5 order. However the other conditions shall be promptly comply with. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE STU 2 3