IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2008 / 16TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 17134 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ SELFRIDGES, PALLIMUKKU, M.G. ROAD, KOCHI-16, (REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR G. SASIDHARAN). BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE-II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SALES TAX COMPLEX, ERNAKULAM. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(AA), COMMERCIAL TAXES, SALES TAX COMPLEX, ERNAKULAM. 3. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER (AA), COMMERCIAL TAXES, SALES TAX COMPLEX, ERNAKULAM. 4. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, VIKAS BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 5. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM AT KAKKANAD. 6. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, SALES TAX COMPLES, ERNAKULAM. 7. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN FOR R1 TO 6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.17134 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P15 and seeks a direction to dispose of Ext.P14. 2. I heard learned Government Pleader also. 3. Ext.P15 is an order passed by the appellate authority calling upon the petitioner to remit 30% of the tax and to provide security to the satisfaction of the assessing authority for the balance amount. 4. According to the petitioner this is a case where the imposition of the condition for payment of 30% was uncalled for. He would contend that originally demand was raised for a sum of nearly Rs.Two Crores. Rectification petition came to be filed. But without granting full relief as sought for, the demand was reduced to nearly Rs.One Crore. Again petitioner filed another rectification petition. Though he moved before the Commissioner, the Commissioner directed the petitioner to go for statutory remedy. That is how the petitioner filed appeal. The second rectification petition filed by the petitioner came to be rejected. He would submit that this is a clear case where the petitioner is being saddled with huge liability without any warrant. He points out that gross profit has been calculated at WPC.17134/2008. 2 20% when the gross profit would be less than 3%. He would point out that in fact the assessing authority finds in the order rejecting the second rectification application that the gross profit is actually less than 9%. But he declines the relief on the ground that it cannot be the subject matter of a rectification application. He further points out that the assessing authority has not properly understood the purport of the entries in the documents and utmost the tax payable would have been nearly Rs.Ten Lakhs. It is then that the assessing authority has directed payment of nearly Rs.One Crore. 5. Learned Government Pleader justifies the order and filed a counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 to 6, to which a reply affidavit is also filed. 6. After considering the case, I feel that it may not be open to me to dub the demand of 30% tax as arbitrary or open to interference under Article 226. Ext.P15 is an interim order. A conditional order can be passed, where competing interests can be balanced. It is not as if the appeal itself stands disposed of. It is not necessary for me to go into the merits of the matter. Learned Government Pleader submits that no amounts are due from the petitioner in respect of past assessments. In regard to all the circumstances, while sustaining the condition that petitioner must pay 30% of the amount, it is further ordered that petitioner need furnish security to WPC.17134/2008. 3 the satisfaction of the authority as directed in Ext.P15 only for 30% more of the demand. For the balance 40%, it is ordered that it is sufficient that petitioner gives a simple bond. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb