IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3638 of 2011(D) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ST.THOMAS CHURCH, ARANATTUKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS VICAT REV. FR.ITTIACHAN KURISSERY. BY ADV. SRI.TONY CHACKO, SRI.K.I.SAGEER. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (LUXURY TAX), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SIVASAKTHI BUILDING, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR-1. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEAL), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-15. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. *********************** W.P(C) No.3638 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Through Exts.P1, P1(a) and P1(b), assessments were finalised against the petitioner under Section 17A of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976, and penalty was also imposed against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner had preferred statutory appeals before the 2nd respondent, as per Exts.P3, P3(a) and P3(b). Ext.P4 is the interim order issued by the 2nd respondent on the stay petitions filed along with the appeals. Through the interim order, the appellate authority had granted stay of collection of the amounts in dispute, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.4 lakhs together in all the 3 cases, and on furnishing security for the balance amount in any of the forms stipulated under the Kerala Tax on Luxury Act. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the appellate authority went highly erred in imposing the condition for payment of the aforesaid amount, since the petitioner is eligible for complete exemption from the provisions of the Act. The building in question is an Auditorium situated within the premise W.P(C) No.3638 of 2011 2 of a Church, which is a place of worship. Hence it is outside the purview of the Act, is the contention. 3. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is noticed that the appellate authority had considered the above said contention. On the basis of a report of the Tahsildar, it was observed that there is no evidence to find that the Auditorium is situated within the same compound of the Church. However, the appellate authority had further observed that, detailed verification of connected records is required to examine sustainability of the contentions raised. Having found that the appellant could establish a prima facie case for granting conditional stay, the appellate authority insisted for payment of a sum of Rs.4 lakhs and to furnish security for the balance. 4. Considering merits of the order impugned, I am of the view that, the appellate authority had applied its mind properly and the contentions raised were considered in its real perspective. It is further evident that the condition imposed could not be termed in any way as rigorous, considering the total amount due under the assessment in question. 5. Under the above circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the interim order passed by the appellate W.P(C) No.3638 of 2011 3 authority. Accordingly the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. 6. However, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court in extending the time stipulated for compliance of the conditions stipulated. It is made clear that, if the petitioner makes payment of the amount insisted, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and furnishes security bond for the balance amount within that time, the same shall be considered as due compliance of the conditions stipulated in Ext.P4. 7. Needless to say that the 2nd respondent shall take all earnest efforts to dispose of Exts.P3, P3(a) and P3(b) appeals at the earliest possible. (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) rtr/