IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 12TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 17712 of 2002(H) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S. SATHYAPALAN & CO., GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS, EDAKKIDAM, EZHUKONE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, S.SATHEESH. BY ADV. SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER FOR INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.30212/2002 IN O.P. NO.17712/2002 DISMISSED: 1.2.2008 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 1993-94. P2: .DO. 1994-95. P3: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR WAIVER SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 1993-94. P4: .DO. 1994-95. P5: TRUE COPY OF NOTES SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. P6: TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION U/S.119(2)(A) ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT. P7: TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.17712 of 2002 .................................................................... Dated this the 1st day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for the respondent. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P7 order whereunder the Chief Commissioner has declined petitioner's application for waiver of interest payable under Section 234B and 234C for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order because the Chief Commissioner has pointed out that petitioner has not satisfied any of the conditions for waiver referred to in Circular issued under Section 119(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act. Moreover, the Commissioner noticed that assessee made substantial investment in immovable property and in the construction of hospital building during the previous years which go to show that assessee had liquidity to pay advance tax. In the circumstances, O.P. is dismissed as devoid of any merit. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms