IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 27782 of 2008(G) ----------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ K.J. JOY, SIGN ERA, NEAR KANIYAMPUZHA BRIDGE, EROOR.P.O, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC), O/O THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 015. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AA), O/O THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (AA), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM PIN - 682 025. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 015. 4. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM AT KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682031. Writ Petition(c) No.27782/08 G 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 27782 OF 2008 G -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th September, 2008 JUDGMENT This is the second round of litigation involving the legality of the interim order passed by the Appellate Authority under the KVAT Act imposing conditions for grant of stay on collection of tax. The earlier round culminated in Ext.P15 Judgment of this Court wherein this Court directed the Appellate Authority to consider the applications afresh. This was on the ground that the earlier order passed, which had also imposed condition of payment of forty per cent and also furnishing security, did not contain any reason whatsoever. Ext.P16 is the impugned order in this case, passed pursuant to Ext.P15 Judgment. 2. I heard Shri K.U. Vijayan, learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order imposed highly cumbersome conditions. It is contended that this is a case WPC.27782/08 G 2 where the petitioner has filed an application for compounding. The reasons for rejection of the application was never communicated to the petitioner. Rule 24 (1) would appear to indicate that an application for compounding must be expressly granted. On a perusal of Ext.P16 order, I am not in a position to say that it is still afflicted with the vice of absence of reasons which persuaded the Division Bench in the earlier round of litigation to intervenue. Leaving open all the contentions of the petitioner and also granting a period of one month from today to comply with the order in full, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge