IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33928 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.C.V.MATHEW & CO., RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTICT, REPRESENTED BY C.V.MATHEW, MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASST.COMMISSIONER (AA), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (HEAD QUARTERS), RANNY. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: shg/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 33928 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Challenge in this writ petition is against the condition imposed in Ext.P3 order of interim stay granted by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner had preferred Ext.P2 statutory appeal against Ext.P1 order of assessment. Ext.P3 is the order issued on the application for stay filed along with the appeal. 2. According to the petitioner the assessment is impugned inter alia on the ground that treating of 20% of the exempted turnover as turnover of tamarind seed purchased, is without any basis. It is contented that the petitioner had already filed revised return disclosing sale of tamarind seed powder and paid tax due thereon. Therefore the condition imposed on the basis of findings in the order of assessment is totally untenable, is the contention. W.P.(C)No. 33928 of 2009 -2- 3. While considering validity of Ext.P3, I notice that the 2nd respondent appellate authority had adverted to the contentions raised in the appeal regarding the above aspects. It is after conducting personal hearing and on an application of mind, the appellate authority had granted stay insisting condition for payment of 40% of the tax amount. It cannot be said that the appellate authority had in any manner erred in imposing such a condition, in exercise of his discretion while granting interim stay. Therefore I am of the opinion that Ext.P3 order does not warrant any interference in this writ petition. 4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that by virtue of the wordings in Ext.P3, steps for collection of balance tax alone is stayed and the same may be interpreted by the assessing authority to the effect that there is no stay with respect to collection of interest and settlement fee, due under the assessment. It is made clear that if the petitioner complies with the condition stipulated in Exr.P3, there will be a stay with respect to the W.P.(C)No. 33928 of 2009 -3- collection of the entire amount covered under the assessment, till the disposal of the appeal. 5. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 appeal as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/