IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 618 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.1201/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., ERNAKULAM TERRITORY (RETAIL) OFFICE IRUMPANAM, KOCHI – 682 309 REP. BY SRI.PRABHU VENKITESH CHIEF FINANCE MANAGER (SHARED SERVICES) HEADQUARTERS. BY ADV. SRI.K.SRIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ASSESSMENT – I, SPECIAL CIRCLE-II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM – 682 030. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI – 682030. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSINER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI – 682 030. 4. HDFC BANK LTD., RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM. 5. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., TATAPURAM ROAD, KOCHI – 18. 6. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEDER SRI.VINOD CHANDRAN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------- R.P.No.618 of 2009 in W.A.No.1201 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd July, 2009 O R D E R Raman, J. Review petitioner who is the appellant in W.A.No.1201 of 2009 seeks to review the judgment dated 16.6.2009. The writ petition itself is against an interim order passed by the appellate authority under the CST, requiring the appellant to remit 40% of the amount due as a condition to grant stay. However, the learned Single Judge, while exercising the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had reduced the amount to 25%. We found no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The contention raised in the review petition is that being a Public Sector Undertaking, in order to obtain a stay, a condition to pay any portion of the amount cannot be insisted. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Bharat Petroleum RP.No.618 of 2009 2 Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax and others (2008 (17) VST 162 (SC). 2. We have perused the judgment of the Apex Court. The Apex Court no doubt considered whether in the factual situation arisen in that case, a condition to remit any amount should be imposed. It was held that the assessee was a Public Sector Company selling Kerosene oil via Public Distribution System route and the demand was for Rs.1.34 crores. Therefore, requiring the appellant therein to insist for payment of any portion of the amount, might affect the public distribution system. No where it is said that a public sector undertaking is entitled for a blanket stay, as of right. So, every case has to be considered on its facts. 3. Further, in this case, what is disputed is the amount of sales tax due not in connection with any Public Distribution System and due to defective 'C' forms. Hence, we find that the above decision has no application in this case. Further, this is not a point urged either in the appeal or before RP.No.618 of 2009 3 the learned Single Judge. As the review petition was filed urging a ground bringing to the notice of this Court a decision of the Supreme Court, we though it appropriate to consider the matter. However, we find no merit in the review petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. But, we extend the time by two weeks from today for compliance of the condition imposed by the learned Single Judge. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE. nj.