The challenge in the Writ Petition is against Ext.P7 common order passed by the appellate Tribunal in stay petitions preferred by the petitioner along with appeals preferred against the order of the 1st appellate authority under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act confirming the assessment as also the penalty imposed on the petitioner. A perusal of Ext.P7 order indicates that the appellate Tribunal after considering the prima facie case projected by the petitioner found it fit to direct the petitioner to deposit 30% of the amount confirmed against him by the assessment and penalty orders, pending disposal of the appeals before it. In the Writ Petition, it is the case of the petitioner that Ext.P7 order is vitiated by a patent non-application of mind inasmuch as the dire financial position of the petitioner was not even adverted to by the appellate authority. In this connection, I find from a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the stay petitions, as also from the memorandum of appeals filed before the Appellate Tribunal, that there was no material produced by the petitioner before the Tribunal to support his contention with regard to his alleged poor financial condition. Under these circumstances, the non-consideration of the plea of financial hardship by the Tribunal while passing Ext.P7 order cannot be said to be the result of a non-application of mind by the appellate
