IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2008 / 9TH MAGHA 1929 W.P(C).No. 3363 of 2008(A) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- M/S. HOTEL ALAKANANDA, MAIN ROAD, PARIPPALLY - 691 574, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, MR. ARAVINDHAKSHAN BY ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN SRI.M.RAJEEV RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1) THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, AUDIT ASSESSMENT, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (AA), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 2) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, THEVALLY, KOLLAM - 9. 3) INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 3363 OF 2008 A = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts. P7 and P8. These orders have been passed by the 2nd respondent considering the stay petitions filed by the petitioner along with the appeal filed in relation to the assessment years 2005-06. By this order stay has been granted by the appellate authority on condition that the petitioner remits 50% of the tax and furnishes adequate security for the balance amount to the satisfaction of the assessing authority. 2. The only contention that is raised before me challenging Exts. P7 and P8 is that the petitioner is in extreme financial crisis and that they cannot afford to pay the amount that is ordered to be paid. A reading of Exts. P7 and P8 shows that the appellate authority was satisfied that a prima facie case was made out by the petitioner and it is on that basis that the conditional order of stay has been granted. It is not reflected from these orders that the W.P.(C) No. 3363 OF 2008 -2- petitioner had put up a case of financial constraints before the appellate authority. Even otherwise, no materials such as balance- sheet etc. have been produced by the petitioner to prove the contention of financial constraints which is now urged before me. In view of all these, I am not satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for interference with Exts. P7 and P8 orders passed by the appellate authority. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-