IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 17503 of 2008(H) ----------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S SHAH CASHEW CO. PALLICKAL, KILIMANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY A SHAHIR SHAH,MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADV. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. ASST. COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), COMMERCIAL TAXES SPECIAL CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, CHIRAYINKIZHU. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 17503 OF 2008 H -------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner seeks to challenge Ext.P5. Ext.P5 is an order passed by the second respondent on an application seeking stay of the assessment order for the assessment year 2000 - 2001 under the KGST Act. Fifty per cent of the balance disputed tax was directed to be deposited. Petitioner challenges the same. According to learned counsel for petitioner, petitioner has already deposited Rs.3 Lakhs as evident from Ext.P3 receipt. Counsel also submitted that the second respondent has not considered the contentions of the petitioner and a direction to pay fifty per cent was issued in a mechanical manner. According to him, the balance amount is only Rs.63,301/=. Learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that actually for the assessment year 2000 - 2001, the amount payable by the petitioner is Rs.4,68,763/=. He points out that Ext.P3 is dated 15.2.2008 and the assessment order Ext.P1 is WPC. 17503/08 H 2 dated 3.3.2008 and therefore, the contentions of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 2. I would think that as things stand, it may not be open for me to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, I dismiss the Writ Petition as the direction is to pay fifty per cent of the balance disputed tax. However, I make it clear that if the petitioner has a case that the amount shown in Ext.P3 is not given credit to, it will not stand in the way of the petitioner taking such recourse to the remedies including moving before the Appellate Authority, if the amount as reflected in Ext.P3 receipt was not given due credit, while passing Ext.P1 assessment order. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy// PS to Judge