Orma Timbers v. State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/30TH MAGHA, 1936 WA.No. 267 of 2015 () IN WP(C).2907/2015 ------------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 2907/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 29-01-2015 APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

---------------------------------------------- ORMA TIMBERS VP.VII/157A, THANKY JUNCTION, N.H.ROAD KALAVANCODAM P.O., CHERTHALA PIN - 688 586 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGIND PARTNER MR.LAJI JOSEPH.

BY ADVS.SRI.SHAJI CHIRAYATH SMT.JIJI M. VARKEY SRI.M.M.SHAJAHAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

---------------------------------------------------- 1.

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

2.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) TAX COMPLEX, ASRAMOM P.O., CHINNAKKADA KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 002.

3.

COMMERCIAL OFFICER-II OFFICE OF THE COMMERCIAL TAX, NEAR: STONE BRIDGE ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688 524 REPRESENTED BY R.SREELATHA.

4.

DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUR RECOVERY) TALUK OFFICE, CHERTHALA (P.O.), ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT PIN - 688 524.

BY ADV.LIJU V.STEPHEN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 1902-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & K.HARILAL, JJ.

.................................................................... W.A.No.267 of 2015 .................................................................... Dated this the 19th day of February, 2015.

J U D G M E N T

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

1.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned senior Government Pleader.

2.Appellant-petitioner challenged an interlocutory order issued pending statutory appeal under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The learned single Judge found that imposition of condition as to deposit of 30% of the balance tax was not based on any reason reflected in the order of stay by the appellate authority. Hence, the stay order impugned in the writ petition was quashed and the appellate authority was directed to consider the stay petition de novo within a time limit of two months. It appears that, in the meanwhile, a mobile crane belonging to the appellant was attached. The learned single Judge, taking note of the relevant facts and factors, has delivered the judgment

WA 267/15 -2directing release of the mobile crane on deposit of `3,00,000/-. Looking at different aspects of the matter and the probable value of the mobile crane detained, we do not think that the condition imposed by the learned single Judge is onerous. All that has to be ensured is that the appellate authority shall, without fail, dispose of the stay petition within the time limit fixed by the learned single Judge. The time for availing the benefit of the judgment of the learned single Judge, insofar as it relates to release of the mobile crane on deposit of `3,00,000/-, is extended for a period of one week from today, as last chance. The writ appeal is dismissed, subject to what is aforesaid. (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (K.HARILAL, JUDGE) jg