IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT :- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930 WA.No.744 of 2008 --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.8743/2008 Dated 14/03/2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER IN WPC:- ------------------------------------------------ M/S.NIRMALA AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD., STADIUM ROAD, MANNANTHALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-685 015, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SANTHOSH S.VALSALAN. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN WPC:- ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER-II (AA), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ADUDIT ASSESSMENT) COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.A.No.744 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 28th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. Being aggrieved by the orders of assessment passed by the assessing authority for the assessment year 2005-2006, the assessee has filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. Along with the appeal, the assessee has also filed an application for grant of interim order. (2). The first appellate authority after coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for admission and grant of conditional interim order has directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the disputed tax and to furnish immovable property as security for the balance amount. (3). Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.(C) No.8743 of 2008. (4). The learned Single Judge has rejected the petition by his order dated 14th March, 2008. It is that order which is called in question before this Court in this appeal. (5). The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner would submit that the first appellate authority while directing the petitioner to pay 50% of the disputed tax and to offer immovable property as security for the balance amount has not applied its mind and therefore the order cannot be sustained by the learned Single Judge. W.A.No,744/2008 -2- (6). We are not impressed by the arguments canvassed by the appellant/petitioner. Time and again Courts have observed that in fiscal legislation grant of interim prayers is not called for. However, discretion is left to the appellate authority while admitting the appeal to impose certain conditions for grant of interim prayer. While doing so, the appellate authority should be satisfied that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of such interim orders. In the instant case, in the orders passed there is an observation made by the appellate authority that he is satisfied that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for admission as well as for grant of interim order. This is not a case where it can be said that the first appellate authority has not applied its mind while granting the interim order. In that view of the matter, we do not intend to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the first appellate authority. Accordingly, the appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE MS