IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 26TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 28743 of 2010(P) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ABDUL BASHEER, STAR ELECTRONICS, CHERTHALA. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.SADASIVAN, SRI.JOY P.JOSE, SRI.K.N.KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, SRI.RAMAN JANARDHANAN, SRI.SOJAN MATHEW, SRI.C.V.SASI, SRI.K.JAYAMOHANAN PILLAI, SMT. EMILY ANDREWS. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (TAXES) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, CHERTHALA-688 524. 3. DY.COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM-691 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.28743 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P5 interim order issued by the 3rd respondent with respect to the assessment completed for the year 2007- 08, under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). The petitioner had preferred statutory appeal before the 2nd respondent. Along with the appeal, an interlocutory application seeking stay was also filed. Ext.P5 is the order of stay granted by the appellate authority. According to the petitioner, the condition stipulated therein for payment of 1/3rd of the tax amount in dispute is unreasonable and arbitrary. 2. It is not proper for this court to interfere with interlocutory orders issued by the statutory authorities, unless such orders are per se illegal, perverse or unsustainable. There is no case for the petitioner that the impugned order was issued by the appellate W.P.(C).28743/10-P -2- authority without adverting to contentions raised in the appeal or that such order was passed in a mechanical manner, without application of mind. Ext.P5 order reflects proper application of mind. The appellate authority, after adverting to the contentions raised in the appeal, found that a prima facie case has been established for granting conditional stay. 3. With respect to rigorousness of the condition imposed, it is pertinent to note that, the petitioner was directed to make payment of only 1/3rd portion of the tax amount in dispute. Regarding imposition of the condition, it is a matter coming within the discretion of the appellate authority and it may not be proper for this court to interfere with such conditions, merely because of the plea that such condition will result in onerous liability on the assessee which he may be finding it difficult to comply with. 4. Under the above circumstances I do not find any merit to entertain this writ petition for interfering with Ext.P5 order. W.P.(C).28743/10-P -3- 5. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the time stipulated for compliance of the condition under Ext.P5 has already been expired. Therefore he seeks further extension of the time stipulated in Ext.P5. Therefore, while dismissing the writ petition, time for compliance of the condition stipulated in Ext.P5 is hereby extended for a period of three weeks from today. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb