IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19338 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- THARISH.P.S, PROPRIETOR, M/S.S.B.GRANITES, EZHAMKULAM, ADOOR. BY ADV. MR. HARISANKAR V. MENON MS. MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ADOOR. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 19338 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 22nd day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is running a metal crusher unit is stated as aggrieved of the condition imposed in Exts. P6 and P7 orders passed by the second respondent/appellate authority, directing the petitioner to satisfy the 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 learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the specific objection raised by the petitioner as taken note in the orders passed by the assessing authority vide Exts. P2 and P3 have not been properly adverted to by the appellate authority while passing the interim order. It is stated that, the fixation of the liability solely by placing reliance on the 'unit of power consumption' is not correct of proper. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner's unit is running without any 'primary crusher' and to prove his bona fides the petitioner has requested the concerned authority to visit and conduct a trial run of the unit. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. W.P. (C) No. 19338 of 2010 : 2 : 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that, the appellate authority has very much adverted to the contentions raised by the petitioner/appellant, taking note of the specific points of arguments as given in the facing sheet itself. The only question, if at all which deserves any consideration is, whether the extent of the liability required to be satisfied (50%) is correct or sustainable. 5. Considering the nature of contentions raised in the memorandum of appeal and as brought out in the Writ Petition, this Court finds it fit and proper to have the condition varied by scaling down the liability from 50 % to '1/3rd'. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to satisfy the 1/3rd of the disputed liability and furnish security ordered by the second respondent vide Exts.P6 and P7, during the pendency of the appeal. The second respondent is also directed to consider and finalize Exts. P4 and P5 appeals, passing final orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd