ANTONY DOMINIC , J.
The appellant is an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act ('KVAT Act' for short).
2. Challenging Exhibit P1 series of assessment orders, the appellant filed Exhibit P2 series of appeals along with Exhibit P3 series of stay petitions. The Appellate Authority heard the stay petitions and passed Exhibit P5 order granting stay on condition of remittance of 30% of the amount demanded. Challenging the said order, the Writ Petition was filed. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the impugned order, but extended the time for deposit. It is this judgment, which is under challenge before us.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
4. Contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that by virtue of Section 25(c) of the KVAT Act, the appellant is entitled to succeed in the appeal and that therefore the condition now imposed by the Appellate Authority is an onerous and illegal one.
5. Even if the above contention canvassed by the appellant is W.A.No.1569/14 -2-
accepted, that only discloses that the appellant has a prima facie case. If the appellant has a prima facie case that will only entitle him for an interim order. The conditions, subject to which such an order has to be passed, are to be decided by the Appellate Authority in exercise of its discretionary powers. It is exercising that discretionary power, that the Appellate Authority has granted stay subject to remittance of 30% and this condition, according to us, is not a perverse or irrational one, justifying interference.
The Writ Appeal fails and is dismissed. However, at the request of the appellant, time for compliance will stand extended by ten days from today.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE dsn Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE