IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 25TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 28687 of 2010(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ALIKUNJU, MANAGING PARTNER M/S.SHINE ROTO PACKS 2/679, COCHIN UNIVERSITY, P.O., SOUTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, (RESIDING AT ADAMBAYIL HOUSE, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM). BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEAL), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-16. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KVAT, CIRCLE 1, KALAMASSERY. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADR SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.28687 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Ext.P7 order issued by the 1st respondent on an interlocutory application filed before that authority along with a statutory appeal, is under challenge in this writ petition. Exercising discretionary jurisdiction vested on the appellate authority, an interim stay was granted subject to condition of the petitioner remitting 50% of the tax amount in dispute and also on furnishing security bond for the balance amount. Interference against interim orders passed by the appellate authorities is justified only if such interim orders are per se illegal and if such orders are passed in a cryptic manner without application of mind and without advertence to the contentions in the appeal. 2. The impugned order in this case reflects an illustration of the main contentions raised in the appeal. W.P.(C).28687/10-I -2- On applying mind to such contentions, the appellate authority found that the penalty was imposed pursuant to an inspection conducted by the Intelligence Wing and that the additions made are based on provisions of the law. But, having considered the dispute regarding quantum of probable omission and suppression, upon which the additions were made, it is found that the petitioner could establish a prima facie case for granting conditional stay. Accordingly the stay was granted on condition of payment of 50%. The extent of the rigorousness of the conditions imposed is not a matter for consideration in this writ petition. It is a matter absolutely coming within the discretion of the appellate authority. Therefore I am of the opinion that even the contention that, the condition will work out to be onerous as far as the petitioner is concerned, is not a ground for this court to interfere with the interim order. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner W.P.(C).28687/10-I -3- submitted that the time stipulated in the impugned order for complying with the condition stands expired, and further time is sought for in the matter of compliance. Having considered the facts and circumstances I am inclined to grant further time for complying with the condition. 4. In the result the writ petition is dismissed. But time for complying with the condition stipulated in Ext.P7 is hereby extended for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb