IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2010 / 25TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25751 of 2010(T) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M/S.JOY ALUKKAS TRADERS (INDIA) PVT.LTD. MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31, REPRESENTED BY SANJAY NAMBOODIRY, MANAGER-ACCOUNTS & TAXES. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON, SMT.MEERA V.MENON, SRI.MAHESH V.MENON. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. ASST.COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), COMMERCIAL TAXES SPECIAL CIRLCE-I, ERNAKULAM - 13. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM - 13. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------- W.P.(C) No. 25751 OF 2010 --------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner, who is stated as a major contributor of revenue to the State, is before this Court challenging Ext.P7 order passed by the appellate authority directing the petitioner to satisfy 1/3rd of the disputed liability so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during pendency of the appeal. Eventhough the subject matter of dispute in the appeal is pertaining to different assessment years 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 both under the KVAT Act and CST Act, the grievance now projected before this Court stands rather confined to the KVAT Act alone, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The case projected by the petitioner with reference to the various facts and figures and also the relevant provisions of law is that there is absolutely no rhyme or reason for having mulcted with such an exorbitant liability by the assessing authority, on the shoulders of the petitioner, which in turn has W.P.(C) No.25751/2010 2 been subject to challenge by filing the statutory appeal before the 2nd respondent. Ext.P7 order is stated as passed without properly considering the vital particulars pointed out by the petitioner as projected in the memorandum of appeal and this being the position, it is liable to interfered by this Court; submits the learned counsel. Reliance is also placed on the decision rendered by this Court reported in N. Rajan Nair v. Income Tax Officer [1987 KLJ 334] observing that the credentials of the petitioner/assessee are also to be considered. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Going by the materials on record, it is very much evident that the specific grounds raised by the petitioner in respect of the different assessment years as borne out by the memorandum of appeal have been clearly adverted to, by the 2nd respondent and it was after analysing the said particulars that Ext.P7 order has been passed, imposing the condition to satisfy 1/3rd of the disputed liability. It is revealed from Ext.P7 that, there is proper discussion of the facts and figures and the W.P.(C) No.25751/2010 3 interference made by the appellate authority is on the basis of such discussion of the factual particulars. This being the position, there is proper application of mind and Ext.P7 is not liable to be declared as a non-speaking order. The Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. 5. However, taking note of the persuasive submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the burden now thrust upon the petitioner is quite heavy, though it is only '1/3rd' and further, since the time stipulated is already over, the petitioner is permitted to clear the said liability by way of 'two' equal instalments; the first of which shall be effected on or before the 20th of this month to be followed by the next one to be satisfied on or before the 20th of the next month. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) ps/19/8