IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2011 / 17TH SRAVANA 1933 WA.No. 1163 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.21238/2011 Dated 04/08/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ M/S.ASWATHY HARDWARES & PAINTS, AYILYAM COMPLEX, MELAMURI,PALAKKAD,REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,MOHANDAS.G, BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SMT.K.HYMAVATHY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,IST CIRCLE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,PALAKKAD 678 001. 2. THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD 678 004. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD 678 001. MR.MOHAMMED RAFIQ, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.NO.1163/2011 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE-A : COPY OF LETTER OF M/S.ASIAN PAINTS DATED 28/01/2011. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... W.A.No.1163 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 8th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. The appellant/petitioner is in this Court in the second round. In the first round, when the learned Single Judge declined to grant direction to the Tribunal to pass orders on the stay application, the appellant/petitioner withdrew the WP (C) and moved the Tribunal, and still the Tribunal has not passed order, is the case of the petitioner. In the second round of writ petition this court issued direction to the Tribunal to dispose of the stay application within six weeks from the date of the judgment i.e. 04/08/2011. Obviously, the Tribunal has time to comply with the order, and within another three days the appellant/petitioner has filed this Writ Appeal against the said judgment. In the first place, this Writ Appeal is not maintainable because the WP(C) was allowed against which the petitioner W.A.No.1163/2011 2 cannot have grievance. Further, we notice that considering the huge turnover admitted by the petitioner, which is Rs.20 crores, the balance demand of tax of around Rs.70,000/- is insignificant. We, therefore decline to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which in our view is not against the appellant. Consequently, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) jg