IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20591 of 2008(B) --------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- M/S.SUPREME ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING (P) LTD, 61/2301, CHAMMONY HOUSE, KATTAKARA ROAD EAST, KALOOR, COCHIN-682017, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR M.B.SIVAKUMAR. BY ADV. SRI.DALE P.KURIEN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (W & LT), COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, COMMERCIAL TAX COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, PERUMANOOR, KOCHI. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)-II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C. K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 20591 OF 2008 B -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P8 and seeks a direction to dispose of Ext.P5 Appeal, among other reliefs. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. Ext.P8 is an order passed by the Appellate Authority staying collection of the balance tax for the assessment years 2006 - 2007 and 2007 - 2008 on condition that the petitioner remits forty per cent of the amount each for both the assessment years and furnishes security for the balance amount. 3. The principal complaint of the petitioner is that actually the petitioner was entitled to deduct the labour charges. According to petitioner, by mistake, in the original returns the labour charges were also shown under the heading"Purchase" and it is contended that a revised return was filed in which the correct amounts were disclosed. Counsel for petitioner also WPC 20591/08 B 2 relied on Exts.P9 and P10. By Ext.P9, for the period, the labour charges are shown even though it is shown under the heading "Purchase". It is the case of the petitioner that Ext.P10 is the details of work receipts for the year ended 31.3.2007 and it also gives details showing the order negotiation/order etc. It is, therefore, contended by the counsel for petitioner that the figure in Ext.P9 will exactly tally with the total amount shown under the head "Purchase". It is, therefore, contended that the demand for payment of forty per cent, at any rate, is liable to be interfered with. Learned Government Pleader would submit that the order was passed after taking into consideration all materials. 4. Having regard to all facts, I feel that interest of justice would be met, if the petitioner is called upon to pay one-third of the amount instead of forty per cent. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of modifying Ext.P8 and directing that if the petitioner remits one-third of the amounts and also furnishes security for the balance amount, recovery proceedings will be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the Appeal. Petitioner is WPC 20591/08 B 3 granted two weeks' time from today to comply with Ext.P8 as modified in this Judgment. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.