IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2011 / 17TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21218 of 2011(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ RENJITH JOSE, S/O.JOSEPH, 6/258, PULIMALAYIL HOUSE, KANNOTH P.O., KODANCHERRY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL, SRI.SAIJU S., SRI.T.PRASAD. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682 016. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, APPEALS- II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THEVALLY P.O., KOLLAM- 9. 3. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICE, SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM- 1. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 21218 of 2011(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.Q7-7007/2010 DATED 17/08/2010 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE OF KOLLAM. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE OR.NO.500/10-11 DATED 13/10/2010 UNDER SECTION 45 B OF THE KGST ACT 1963. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.OR-500-10-11 DATED 03/09/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.OR.500/10-11 DATED 16/11/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO.KVATA-775/2010 DATED 23/11/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE SECOND APPEAL TA(VAT) NO.402/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE INTERIM PETITION NO.70/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER IN INT.P.NO.70/2011 IN TA(VAT) NO.402/2011 DATED 01/07/2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 21218 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 8th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P8 order of the Appellate Tribunal under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, whereby the petitioner has been granted a stay of recovery of the tax disputed in the appeal on condition that the petitioner pays Rs. 45,000/- and furnishes security for the balance. The petitioner submits that in parallel abkari proceedings, the petitioner has been absolved from liability and therefore the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have granted an absolute stay without insisting on any condition, is the contention raised. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has not given any reasons for passing the conditional order. Having Heard the learned Government Pleader also, I do not find any merit in the challenge against Ext.P8 order, which directs the petitioner to pay only 1/3rd of the disputed tax. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/