IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 W.P(C).No. 7705 of 2008(P) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- RISHI RANI ASSOCIATES, KUNJALUMOODU, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY M. SAINULABDEN OF THE MANAGING PARTNER, S. NIZAR AHAMMED BY ADV. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 1ST CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (AUDIT ASSESSMENT), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (AA), COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRIUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 7705 OF 2008 P ==================== Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext.P5 is the order under challenge. By this order, stay has been granted by the appellate authority on condition that the petitioner remits 50% of the disputed tax and interest within two weeks and furnish security for the balance. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P5 is a mechanical order and that the contentions raised before the Appellate authority have not been adverted to. A reading of Ext.P5 shows that the appellant was directed to pay 50% of the disputed tax and interest. Although it is true that the points canvassed before the appellate authority are not reiterated in Ext.P5, I am not inclined to interfere with Ext.P5 as prayed for by the counsel for the petitioner. I take Ext.P5 as an order issued by the appellate authority considering the facts projected before him and exercising his discretionary power and unless some WPC 7705/08 :2 : perversity is made out, this court will not be justified in interfering with the same. I do not find any such vitiating reasons justifying interference with Ext.P5. 3. Having regard to the facts of the case, I do not think it proper that the remittance should cover interest as well and to that extent, I cannot agree with Ext.P5. Therefore, Ext.P5 will stand modified requiring the petitioner to remit 50% of the tax alone and the petitioner will furnish security for the balance disputed tax and interest. Time for remittance will stand enlarged by three weeks from today. Subject to this modification, the writ petition is disposed of. On remittance as above, the 1st respondent shall expeditiously dispose of the appeal. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp