IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 21ST APRIL 2009 / 1ST VAISAKHA 1931 WA.No. 952 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.10841/2009 Dated 08/04/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------ M/S.KAIRALI AYURVEDIC HEALTH RESORT PVT.LTD., OLASSERY P.O., KODUMBU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER (OPERATIONS) SHRI.ARUN.R.S. BY ADVS. MR.T.M.SREEDHARAN MR.C.K.SHERIN MR.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC & LT), PALAKKAD. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN & ANTONY DOMINIC, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W.A.No.952 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT ANTONY DOMINIC, J. The challenge in the writ petition was against Ext.P4, an order of assessment passed under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge set aside Ext.P4 order and directed re-consideration of the matter in the light of the objection to be filed by the petitioner, on condition that the petitioner remits an amount of Rs.5 lakhs. Therefore, as at present, the only question that arises for consideration is the reasonableness of the condition that has been imposed by the learned Single Judge. 2. A reading of the impugned order itself shows that the total demand is in excess of Rs.1 crore and the petitioner was proceeded against on the basis that it is a luxury hotel which W.A.NO.952/09 2 admittedly was covered by the Act and not an Ayurvedic Treatment Centre as contended by the petitioner. If that be so, the condition imposed by the learned Single Judge is absolutely reasonable. Therefore, we do not find any illegality warranting interference in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Acd W.A.NO.952/09 3