IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 31ST BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 29161 of 2010(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ C.R.SANAL, PROPRIETOR, M/S. AMMA TRADERS, KOLLAMPUZHA, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM SRI.M.A.ALEX MARTIN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES II CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 2. TH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V.K.SHAMSUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 29161 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P2 to P5 assessment orders and P10 interim order passed by the 2nd respondent appellate authority. 2. Aggrieved by Ext.P2 to P5 assessments, the petitioner had preferred appeals before the 2nd respondent as per Exts.P6 to P9. Along with the appeals the petitioner had also filed applications seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax. Ext.P10 is the interlocutory order passed by the 2nd respondent on the said applications. The 2nd respondent, after being satisfied that the petitioner had established a prima facie case, granted conditional stay directing the petitioner to remit 50% of the disputed tax and interest and also to furnish adequate security for the balance amount. 3. It is pointed out that the sole issue in the appeals relates to dispute regarding rate of tax applicable for the product “Ujala Supreme” and “Ujala Stiff & Shine”. It is W.P.(C) No. 29161/2010 2 mentioned that the dispute regarding the rate of tax is now pending decision before the Honourable Supreme Court as well as before this Court in a Tax Revision Case. Therefore, contention of the petitioner is that, the condition imposed is highly onerous to work out and will result in severe prejudice to the petitioner, who is only a distributor of the products. It is also pointed out that in many other cases filed by the manufacturer as well as the distributors of the said products, this Court had directed the appellate authorities to consider the appeals and stay was granted on condition of payment of 1/3rd of the amount. 4. In normal circumstances interference with an interlocutory order passed by a statutory appellate authority is not at all proper. The petitioner has no case that the impugned order is a cryptic one issued without application of mind or without adverting to the contentions. Imposition of condition for granting stay is a matter coming within the absolute discretion of the appellate authority. Hence in the strict sense interference with Ext.P10 is not warranted. W.P.(C) No. 29161/2010 3 5. However, considering the fact that the dispute regarding the rate of tax applicable is yet to be settled and also considering the fact that in identical cases reliefs were already granted, I am inclined to order modification in Ext.P10 order, reducing the condition for payment from 50% to 1/3rd of the liability. 6. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P6 to P9 appeals at the earliest possible. Ext.P10 order is hereby modified to the extent of the condition insisting payment of 50% of the tax amount and interest. The petitioner has to pay 1/3rd of the tax amount and interest in dispute and shall furnish security for the balance amount. If the petitioner complies with the above condition within a period of two weeks from today, all the recovery steps shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the appeals. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.