R VIJAYAN Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER PUNALUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Senior Counsel for the appellant and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(2.) This appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)15850/17. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant seeking to challenge Ext.P24 order passed by the third respondent, whereby stay of recovery of tax and interest due under Ext.P16 order of assessment was granted subject to the appellant remitting 25% of the amount due. In the judgment under appeal, while upholding the order of the Appellate Authority, the learned Single Judge reduced the amount to be remitted from 25% to 15%. It is aggrieved by this judgment, this appeal is filed.

(3.) Despite the persuasive submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment under appeal. This is primarily for the reason that a reading of Ext.P24 order show that the Appellate Authority has given its reasons for its conclusion that the appellant had made out a prima facie case. The order also shows that it was on that finding that the Appellate Authority has exercised its discretionary power and ordered remittance of 25% of the amount due as condition for stay. The judgment under appeal also shows that valid considerations have weighed with the learned Single Judge for confirming the order on merits and reducing the quantum to 15%.