IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 W.P.(C).No. 2919 of 2008 (V) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SREE VENKITESWARA AGENCIES T.D.SANNIDHI ROAD,ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY PARTNER, SRI. T.G.RAJARAM SHENOY. BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(AA)- COMMERCIAL TAXES, SALES TAX COMPLEX THEVARA, ERNAKULAM. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)- COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM AT KAKKANAD. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (TAXES) GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 2919 OF 2008 V = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext. P12 order by which a conditional order of stay has been granted is under challenge. 2. By this order, in respect of the tax due for the assessment year 2005-06 stay has been granted on condition that the petitioner remits 40% of the balance tax and furnishes security for the balance amount. In so far as the tax for the assessment year 2006-07 is concerned, stay has been granted on remittance of 1/3rd of the balance tax and furnishing security for the balance. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed is a mechanical one and without adverting to the points urged. I notice from Ext. P12 that when the petitioner appeared, it was contended that the assessing authority erred in disallowing the sales return for the year 2005-06 for the reason that debit note as well as conclusive proof were not produced. It was also contended that for the year 2006-07, the input tax credit ought W.P.(C) No.2919 of 2008 - 2 - to have been allowed. It is examining these contentions that the appellate authority had concluded that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for granting a conditional stay. 4. Therefore it may not be correct to contend that the order is a mechanical one and that it is passed without adverting to the contentions urged. In my view, the appellate authority has exercised its discretionary power and has granted a conditional order of stay. I do not find any perversity in the order passed. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-