IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 5616 of 2010(B)
1. SRI,SETHUKUMAR
... Petitioner
2. NOORUDEEN
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, ADOOR.
5. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
For Petitioner :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :19/02/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
..............................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 5616 OF 2010
.........................................................................
Dated this the 19th February , 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is challenging Exts.P7 and P7(a) orders
passed by the third respondent granting interim stay directing
the petitioners to deposit the amount as specified therein
towards tax and cess, as a condition to avail the benefit of
interim stay during the pendency of the appeals.
2. Subsequently, it appears that the petitioners have
approached the appellate authority by filing petitions for
extension of time to satisfy the condition till 28.02.2010 and
after considering the request, the appellate authority passed
Exts. P8 sand P8(a) orders whereby the time originally
stipulated, i.e. 30.01.2010, was extended till 21.02.2010. The
petitioners are admittedly still to satisfy the condition, including
remittance of the due amount and also to provide adequate
security for the balance amount. The case of the petitioners is
W.P.(C) No. 5616 OF 2010
2
that because of the frustrating pecuniary circumstances, the
petitioners could not effect payment .
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who
submits on the basis of the materials on record that, the
amounts stipulated to be paid under Exts. P7 and P7 (a) are only
on the basis of the admitted figures, as furnished by the
petitioners and further that the orders imposing the condition
are very much ‘speaking orders’, which do not call for any
interference. In any view of the matter, there was no
challenge for the petitioners against Exts.P7 and P7(a) orders
dated 04.01.2010 earlier and the petitioners became aggrieved
only after passing of Exts.P8 and P8(a) orders, whereby the
request for extension of time till 28.02.2010 was not allowed as
such, but for extending the time only till 21.02.2010.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court does
not find it as a fit case to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is absolutely
no merit or bonafides in the Writ Petition. However, considering
the persuasive submission made by the learned Counsel for the
W.P.(C) No. 5616 OF 2010
3
petitioners, the petitioners are permitted to satisfy the condition
imposed by the appellate authority/the third respondent vide
Exts. P7 and P7(a), on or before 10.03.2010 remitting the
balance tax and cess due and furnish adequate security for the
balance amount. On satisfying the requirement as above, the
petitioners will continue to have the benefit of interim stay
granted by the appellate authority vide Exts. P7 and P7(a).
Subject to this, the recovery proceedings being pursued by the
respondents against the petitioners shall be kept in abeyance.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk