IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 17246 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.M.R.MUSTHAFA, PROPRIETOR PEEYAMMAR ENTERPRISES, TIMBER MERCHANT, PERUMBAVOOR-683542 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BY ADV. DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY (SR.) SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, (IB), MATTANCHERY COMMERCIAL TAXES, FACILITATION CENTRE COCHIN-3 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM 3. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, FIRST CIRCLE PERUMBAVOOR BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 17246 OF 2008 C ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner seeks quashing of Ext.P7 order. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows. The petitioner imported timber as per bill of entries and other import documents. The 1st respondent gathered details of import made by the petitioner and alleging that advance tax as per Circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was not paid for the import, Ext.P1 order was passed. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P1, the petitioner preferred a rectification application. The officer found that the petitioner is partially correct and allowed the prayer for rectification partially. Accordingly, the petitioner was called upon to pay an amount of Rs.27,91,876/-. The petitioner preferred an appeal and stay petition before the 2nd respondent. By Ext.P7 order, the 2nd respondent has ordered to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- and furnish security for the balance amount within three weeks WPC.17246/08 : 2 : from the date of Ext.P7. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Dr.K.B.Mohamed Kutty and the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having regard to the facts of the case, the demand for payment of Rs.8 lakhs cannot be justified. He also pointed out that the petitioner has, in fact, paid the entire amount due as advance tax. Having regard to the totality of facts, I feel that the petitioner need not be called to pay Rs.8 lakhs and in the interest of justice, the petitioner can be directed to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and furnish security for the balance amount. It is ordered accordingly. The petitioner is granted one month's time from today to deposit the amount. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE