IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2010 / 16TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21085 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.HYLUX MACHINES, NETTISSERY, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRIX, SMT.ANITHA TONY BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, PALAKKAD. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-1, IST CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR. 4. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 21085 of 2010-I ---------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of Ext.P6 order, whereby the petitioner was directed to satisfy 50% of the disputed liability and to furnish security for the balance amount, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the appeal. 2. The sequence of events as narrated in the Writ Petition shows that, challenging Ext.P1 assessment order passed by the assessing authority, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal before the second respondent. After considering the merits of the appeal, the liability was substantially reduced as per Ext.P2 order passed by the appellate authority. Pursuant to Ext.P2, the matter was reconsidered by the assessing authority, who passed Ext.P3 modified assessment order. Not being satisfied with the extent of intervention made by the appellate authority vide Ext.P2, the petitioner challenged it further, by filing second appeal before the first respondent, as borne by Ext.P4, along with a petition for stay. It is after considering the said I.A, that Ext.P6 order has been passed by the first respondent, whereby the petitioner has been directed to satisfy 50% of the disputed liability. W.P(C) No. 21085 of 2010-I 2 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits with reference to the materials on record, that the direction contained in Ext.P6 is very much in conformity with the relevant provisions of law and the materials on record. 4. Going by the sequence of events, it is very much evident, that the liability originally mulcted upon the shoulders of the petitioner vide Ext.P1 assessment order has been substantially reduced by virtue of Ext.P2 order, though the same has been subjected to further challenge by filing Ext.P4. The net result of Ext.P6 interim order is that, 50% of the liability now ordered to be satisfied by the petitioner is not half of the original liability cast upon him by virtue of Ext.P1; but 50% of the modified liability as it now exits vide Ext.P3. This Court does not find any merit in the Writ Petition. No interference is warranted and the Writ Petition is dismissed. 5. Taking note of the fact that the time stipulated by the first respondent to satisfy the condition vide Ext.P6 is already over, the petitioner is permitted to satisfy the condition within a further period of two weeks. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab