IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25522 of 2011(M) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ILIYASH MINES AND MINERALS PVT.LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR A.R.MOHAMED ILIYASH, ARISTO COMPLEX, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SMT.LAKSHMI RAJAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, SECOND CIRCLE, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD-678 001. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAX, PALAKKAD-678 001. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. ADV. SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN - GOVT. PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25522 of 2011(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE HIGH SEAS SALE AGREEMENT DTD.5.5.07 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN PETITIONER AND M/S. BHATIA INTERNATIONAL LTD., CHENNAI. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ENTERED INTO BETWEEN PETITIONER AND M/S. NAIR COAL SERVICES LTD., DTD.23.12.06. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32090286802/06-07 DTD.21.11.2009. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32090286802/07-08 DTD.21.11.2009. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SEC.66 OF THE KERALA VAT ACT 2003 DTD.20.1.2011. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF 1ST RESPONDENT DISMISSING EXT.P5 APPLICATION. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE acd S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.25522 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P8 order of the Asst. Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Palakkad passed in a stay petition filed by the petitioner seeking stay of recovery of tax disputed in Ext.P7 appeal, to the extent it directs the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1 lakh as a condition for stay. The petitioner also seeks expeditious disposal of Ext.P7 appeal. 2. Both are opposed by the learned Government Pleader. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. On a reading of Ext.P8, I am satisfied that the appellate authority has exercised his discretion in granting stay properly after considering the prima facie case and balance of convenience. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with Ext.P8 order. Insofar as the appeal itself has been filed only in the latter half of August 2011, I do not think that I will be justified in directing the appellate authority to give priority in the matter of hearing of that appeal. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd