IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2009 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30353 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.K.CEMENTS & STEELS, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE, REP. BY MANAGING PARTNER, SREERAM MADHAVAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.LATE. V.K.MADHAVAN, RESIDING AT KASHMIKANDY(H), BANK ROAD, COCHIN-673001. BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL. S RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. 2. ASST. COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE-I, KOZHIKODE. 3. CHANDRANKUTTY KUYYATIL, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.KUTTI MASTER, 'CHAITHRAM', VATAKARA, CALICUT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.30353 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Petitioner is challenging the condition imposed in Ext.P3 interim order of stay granted by the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment the petitioner had preferred Ext.P2 appeal. Along with the appeal, the petitioner had filed stay petition seeking stay of collection of tax amount in dispute, pending disposal of the appeal. Ext.P3 is the order issued on the stay petition. On a perusal of Ext.P3 order it is revealed that the appellate authority had conducted hearing on the petition and adverted to the contentions raised by the petitioner in the appeal. The appellate authority observed that the appellant had not produced any conclusive evidence for granting stay and it is observed that prima facie the assessment is seen made on sustainable grounds. Therefore the appellate authority had issued the interim stay, imposing a condition of payment of an amount of Rs.50,000/- on or before 24.10.2009 and to furnish security for the balance amounts. 2. The impugned order Ext.P3 is an order issued exercising discretion of the appellate authority. It is evident that W.P.(C).30353/09-L 2 the appellate authority had adverted to the contentions and after proper application of mind the impugned stay order is issued. It is reflected in Ext.P3 that the appellate authority had adverted to the contentions and applied its mind while issuing the interim order. Therefore I find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety to interfere with Ext.P3. 3. However learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the condition imposed in Ext.P3 is unworkable considering the acute financial stringencies which is now being faced by the petitioner. Therefore he prays for a reduction in the amount with respect to the condition stipulated. Eventhough interference on merits in this regard is not desirable, I am of the opinion that some indulgence can be shown in the matter of permitting the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- inspite of Rs.50,000/- insisted in Ext.P3. 4. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of modifying Ext.P3 order to the extent it composed condition for payment of Rs.50,000/-. The 1st respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on 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, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Respondents are directed to keep in abeyance all steps for realisation of the amounts covered under Ext.P1 W.P.(C).30353/09-L 3 assessment, on condition of the petitioner remitting an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) on or before 10.12.2009 and on furnishing security for the remaining amount as per the assessment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb