IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2011 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32352 of 2011(T) -------- -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- A.K HAFEEZ, S/O AHAMMED KABEER, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S AL. STEEL INDUSTRIALS, JONAKAPURAM ,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KERALA VALUE ADDED TAXES ACT SPECIAL CIRCLE COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT. KOLLAM- 691 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, THEVALLY P.O, KOLLAM- 691 009. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TAXES DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 32352 of 2011(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 25(1) IN NO. 32020229125/06-07 /06.06.2011 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR RS. 7202030/- AS PER ORDER NO. 32020229125/06-07/14.07.2011 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL IN FORM NO. 29 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DTD. 17.08.2011. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DTD. 17-08-2011 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT IN ORDER NO. KVATA- 784/11 DTD. 16.11.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE. STU S.SIRI JAGAN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)NO.32352 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of December 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order of the second respondent in an appeal filed by the petitioner against the assessment order under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, by which as a condition for stay the petitioner was directed to pay 1/3rd of the demand. According to the petitioner, while passing that order, the appellate authority has not followed the principles laid down in judgments regarding consideration of stay petition in tax matters. 2. I have heard the Learned Government Pleader also. On going through Ext.P5 order, I do not find any infirmity, whatsoever, therein. The contention of the petitioner has been duly noted and order has been passed. If the petitioner's contention that the appellate authority should have considered his contentions in detail is accepted, then, the appeal itself could have been disposed of. That is not what is required in the matter of disposing of stay petitions. The appellate authority has considered the matter in the right perspective. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the challenge against Ext.P5. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. stu 2 3