IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2010 / 12TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14514 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SSD OILS MILLS COMPANY LTD,42,1149 A, C.B.TOWER,K.K.PADMANABHAN ROAD,AYYAPPANKAVU-682018 REPRESENTED BY SRI.T.MADHAVAN PILLAI, SALES MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,SPECIAL CIRCLE-I, COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM,PIN:682015. 3. INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM AT KAKKANAD,PIN:682 031. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,TAXES DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN:695001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 14514 of 2010-L ---------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P4 order, whereby the petitioner has been directed to satisfy 30% of the disputed liability and to furnish sufficient security for the balance amount, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the statutory appeal in respect of the assessment year '2006-07'. The very same order also directs the petitioner to satisfy the liability as specified therein in respect of the assessment year '2007-08' with regard to which the petitioner does not have any challenge or grievance as projected in the Writ Petition. 2. The respondents have filed a statement seeking to sustain the course and events pursued by the respondent, giving facts and figures with regard to the extent of liability involved, thus seeking to sustain the impugned order. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the initial liability of the petitioner has been substantially brought down as revealed from the contents of Ext.P4 order passed by the W.P(C) No. 14514 of 2010-L 2 appellate authority and that the issue stands rather confined to the actual 'rate of tax'. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, and also as to the extent of liability as projected in the statement and also the dispute made from the part of the petitioner, the only question to be considered is whether there is proper application of mind while passing Ext.P4 order, while imposing the condition upon the petitioner for availing the benefit of stay. Ext P4 reveals that the relevant contentions raised from the part of the petitioner were very much adverted to and it was thereafter that the order has been passed directing the petitioner to satisfy the liability to the specified extent so as to avail the benefit of interim stay. This being the position, it cannot be said that Ext.P4 order is a 'non-speaking order'; or that the same has been passed without any application of mind. 5. However, taking note of the persuasive submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the extent of liability is on the higher side, this Court finds it fit and proper to modify the order, whereby the petitioner is directed to satisfy a sum of 'Rs.15 lakhs' in respect of the assessment year 2006-07 and to W.P(C) No. 14514 of 2010-L 3 furnish security for the balance amount as specified in Ext.P4. Subject to this modification, the petitioner will continue to have the benefit of interim stay till the appeal is finalised by the appellate authority as above. Since the time stipulated in Ext.P4 is already over, the petitioner is granted one weeks' time from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to comply with the direction. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab