T J SHAJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved of Ext.P1 assessment order for the year 2009-2010, which in turn is subjected to challenge by filing ext.P2 appeal along with petition for stay before the third respondent. After considering the I.A. for stay, the third respondent passed Ext.P4 order, whereby the petitioner was granted the benefit of interim stay subject to the condition that the petitioner satisfied 40% of the balance amount within 'three weeks', which is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the course pursued by the third respondent is not correct and proper in so far as Ext.P4 order has been passed in a mechanical manner without any regard to the relevant provisions of law or the binding judicial precedents. Learned counsel also submits that the issue is squarely covered by the decision in Priya Agencies v. Commercial Tax Officer (2008 (14) VST 293).

(3.) SUBJECT to the variation and satisfaction of the security for the balance amount as overdue, the petitioner will stand eligible for the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the appeal. Taking note of the fact that, the time stipulated to satisfy the due amount is over, the petitioner is granted ten days time more to satisfy the due amount. Writ petition is disposed of.