High Court Kerala High Court

Sri.Krishna Ram vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 2 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
Sri.Krishna Ram vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 2 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 26244 of 2010(E)


1. SRI.KRISHNA RAM,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),

3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :02/09/2010

 O R D E R
                         C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J
                   ---------------------------
                     W.P(C) No.26244 of 2010-E
             Dated----------------------------2010.
                   this the 2nd day of September,

                           J U D G M E N T

Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P8 order issued by

the second respondent. Ext.P8 is an interim order passed on a stay

petition filed along with a statutory appeal. On perusal of Ext.P8, it

is evident that the appellate authority had adverted to the

contentions raised by the petitioner. It is after proper application of

mind and considering merits of such contentions, that the interim

order was passed. Exercising the discretion vested upon the

appellate authority, a condition was imposed for payment of

Rs.51,400/-. Total due as per the assessment is Rs.4,83,047/-.

The petitioner had raised contention that two payments effected

prior to the assessment has been given credit. But it is noticed that

after reckoning such payments, the appellate authority observed

that the balance would be Rs.1,54,199/-. It is pertinent to note that

only an amount equal to 1/3rd (approximately) alone was directed to

be paid, as a condition for granting interim stay. Under the above

circumstances, I do not feel that there is any valid or legal grounds

W.P(C) No.26244 of 2010-E 2

to interfere with Ext.P8. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves no

merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

time stipulated in Ext.P8 for complying with the condition had

already expired; and indulgence of this Court is sought for

extending the time for effecting the payment. It is made clear that

if the petitioner complies with the conditions in Ext.P8, within a

period of two weeks from today, the same shall be considered as

proper compliance.

Sd/-

C.K.ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE

//True Copy//

P.A to Judge
ab