Antony Dominic, J. The appellant filed the writ petition challenging Ext.P11 order passed by the First Appellate Authority granting stay of the demand for tax under the KVAT Act for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11 on condition that the appellant deposits 30% of the amount. By the judgment under appeal, the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition reducing the same from 30% to 15%. It is still aggrieved that this appeal is filed.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. From the submissions made before us, we are inclined to think that the case of the appellant is that he has a good case on merits and therefore the departmental authorities and the learned single Judge erred in imposing conditions for the grant of stay.
4. In our view, even if it is assumed that the appellant has a good case, that only entitles him for a stay and the conditions subject to which stay is granted is a matter which is well within the
W.A.No.1431/14
: 2 :
discretion of the statutory appellate authority. Reading of Ext.P11 order shows that the appellate authority was satisfied that the appellant has a prima facie case and it was considered that fact that stay was granted subject to remittance of 30%. This condition has been diluted by the learned single Judge by reducing the same to 15% by the judgment under appeal.
5. In our view, the judgment of the learned single Judge does not suffer from any illegality to warrant interference in this appeal.
6. Appeal is dismissed.
However, having regard to the request made by the learned counsel for the appellant, time for compliance will stand extended by four weeks from today.
Rp //True Copy// PA to Judge Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE