IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31866 of 2011(G) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- PARISONS FOODS PVT.LTD., 6/1183, CHEROOTTY ROAD, CALICUT-32, REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR-N.K.KHALID. BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SMT.RUKHIYABI MOHD. KUNHI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER II, SPECIAL CIRCLE-I, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERANJIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673 006. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, DEVI COMPLEX, ERANJIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673 006. 3. THE SALE TAX OFFICER (RECOVERY), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES,KOZHIKODE-673 006. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 31866/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT (AY-05-06) P5: COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT (AY-08-09) P6: COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE (AY-05-06) P6(a):COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE (AY-08-09) P7: COPY OF THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF STAY PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT (AY-05-06) P8: COPY OF THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF STAY PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT (AY-08-09) RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs S.SIRI JAGAN,J. ----------------------- WP(C) No.31866 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 30 th day of November , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Exts.P7 and P8 orders passed by the second respondent appellate authority under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act , in a stay petition filed by the petitioner along with an appeal against assesment orders passed by the first respondent, where in as a condition for stay, the petitioner has directed to pay 1/3rd of the amount demanded. According to the petitioner, the appellate authority has not considered the matter in the right perspective as laid down by this court in various decisions in respect of the consideration of stay petitions in taxation matters. 2. The learned Government Pleader would contend that the appellate authority has in fact considered the prima facie case of the petitioner and other circumstances, in passing the conditional stay order and therefore, there is no infirmity WP(C) No.31866 OF 2011 2 in Exts.P7 and P8 orders . 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. I have gone through Exts.P7 and P8 orders. Of course, it does not give elaborate reasons for the decision. But if elaborate reasons are to be given , then the appellate authority can dispose of the appeal itself. That is not what is contemplated while considering the stay petition. 5. I am satisfied that in so far as only 1/3rd of the demand has been directed to be paid, there is no reason to interfere with the said orders. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, I direct the respondents to grant the petitioner one more month's time from today to comply with the directions in the impugned orders. S.SIRI JAGAN JUDGE mm WP(C) No.31866 OF 2011 3 WP(C) No.31866 OF 2011 4