IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17717 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.LG ELECTRONICS INDIA (P) LTD., 40/2170, VASUDEV BUILDINGS, T.D.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-11, REPRESENTED BY V.HARIHARAN, AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ASST.COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE-I, ERNAKULAM. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.17717 of 2010-L ---------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The correctness and sustainability of the condition imposed while granting Exts.P5 and P6 orders passed by the appellate authority, allegedly without any regard to the pendency of the appeal, forms the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. In respect of Ext.P1 and P2 assessment made under the KVAT and CST Act for the assessment years 2006-07, the petitioner preferred Exts.P3 and P4 appeals, along with interlocutory applications for stay before the second respondent. The unsustainability of the impugned order is questioned on many a ground as projected in the memorandum of appeal, simultaneously pointing out the mistake as to the actual facts and figures. However, the second respondent, after considering the interlocutory application for stay, simply observed that the petitioner/appellant had established a prima facie case and on next breath imposed a condition to satisfy '60%' of the liability and to furnish security for W.P(C) No.17717 of 2010-L 2 the balance amount, so as to avail the benefit of stay, which is not correct or sustainable according to the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the discrepancies as to the actual figures were clearly projected in para 2 of Exts.P3/P4 appeal, where double the amount happened to be taken, which ought not to have been in the correct position. It has not been considered and discussed by the appellate authority while imposing penalty. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, the materials borne out by the records the version given by the petitioner in the opening para of the Writ Petition and also that the petitioner is major contributory to the revenue of the State, this Court finds that the discussion stated as made by the appellate authority in Ext.P4 is not enough to arrive at an inference that the direction to satisfy 60% of the disputed liability is sustainable as it stands now. This Court finds that the liability mulcted upon the petitioner could be scaled down to '1/3rd' of the disputed liability. 6. In the above circumstances, the direction contained in Exts.P5 and P6 to satisfy 60% of the amount due, will stand modified W.P(C) No.17717 of 2010-L 3 as 1/3rd.. Since the time stipulated in Exts.P5 and P6 is already over, the petitioner is directed to clear the above extent of liability ie 1/3rd of the total and furnish a security bond for the balance amount before the assessing authority within one week. The second respondent is directed to consider and finalize the appeal in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab