K.balakrishnan Nair, J. ----------------W.p.(C) v. Income Tax Officer & Another 165 Itr 650

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2007 / 4TH MAGHA 1928 WP(C).No. 2846 of 2007(L) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M/S.INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., ERNAKULAM, REP.BY A.SELVAM, DEPUTY MANAGER (FINANCE). BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT) I SPECIAL CIRCLE II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. SPECIAL CIRCLE II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI,SAJAN JAMES. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.-----------------W.P.(C).NO.2846 of 2007-L-----------------------------Dated this the 24[th] day of January, 2007---------------------------------------JUDGMENT---------- The Indian Oil Corporation is the petitioner. It challengesExt.P6 interim order passed by the appellate authority directing itto pay 50% of the balance amount due in 2 instalments, the firstinstalment of 25% on or before 31-1-07 and balance 25% on orbefore 26-2-07. According to the petitioner, the appellateauthority has passed the order mechanically, without consideringthe decisions of this Court as to how the discretion should beexercised. Reliance is placed on 71 STC 347 and also thedecision in N.Rajan Nair Vs. Income Tax Officer & another 165 ITR650. 2. The appellate authority found that a portion of the claimmade by the petitioner is genuine and therefore it has made out aprima facie case for granting stay. But, the petitioner claimsabsolute stay. But, having regard to the principles of balance ofconvenience, I feel that the order passed by the appellateauthority is just and proper, especially in view of the principleslaid down by the Apex Court in Asst.Collector. C.E., Chandan WPC 2846/2007 Nagar Vs. DunlopIndia Ltd. (AIR 1985 SC 330). Further, this Courtwill interfere with an interim order which is passed at thediscretion of the appellate authority if it shows that it is manifestlyunjust and perverse. I find no such ground has been made out inthis case. No serious prejudice is caused to the writ petitioneralso. In the result, the Writ Petition fails, and it is dismissed. MS K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE.