Judgment : Shaffique, J. 1. Petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant. Petitioner challenged Ext.P8 conditional order of stay passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam directing the appellant to pay 30% of outstanding balance of Rs.1,32,93,339/- and furnish adequate security to the satisfaction of the assessing authority for the balance amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The demand under appeal was with reference to the assessment years 2007- 2008, 2009-10 and 2010-11. The assessment was made under Section 25(1) and 67(1) of the KVAT Act of 2003. 2. The learned Single Judge, after considering the facts and circumstances involved in the case, did not interfere with Ext.P8 order. However, the petitioner was permitted to deposit 25 lakhs and furnish bank guarantee for the remaining 14,88,152/- in addition to furnishing adequate security for the balance 70% as directed in Ext.P8. 3. While impugning the above judgment, it is argued by the learned senior Counsel Sri.V.V.Asokan, appearing on behalf of the appellant that there is no application of mind by the appellate authority while issuing Ext.P8 and only a mechanical order had been passed. The learned senior counsel relied in Supreme Electrical Engg.(P) Ltd v. Commercial Tax Officer ( 2008(3) KLT 805 ). Specific reliance was made to paragraph 7 of the judgment wherein the Division Bench of this Court is held as under:- " In the instant case a perusal of the order passed by the first Appellate Authority while considering the interlocutory application filed by the assessee would only show that, it has narrated the facts and arguments advanced by the assessee's representative and without expressing its tentative opinion on the controversy involved in the case, has disposed of the application in a cursory manner only by saying. "Examination of the contentions and verification of the records revealed that there is prima facie case for granting conditional stay. In the circumstances the following orders are passed." 4. In Supreme Electrical Engineering (P)Ltd's case, this Court formed an opinion that while disposing of the stay petitions the appellate authority cannot pass a tailor made order but should apply its mind to the factual circumstances involved in the case and has to find out whether a prima facie case exists or not. 5. In Supreme Electrical Engineering (P)Ltd's case, this Court formed an opinion that while disposing of the stay petitions the appellate authority cannot pass a tailor made order but should apply its mind to the factual circumstances involved in the case and has to find out whether a prima facie case exists or not. 5. On a perusal of Ext.P8, we understand that the appellate authority has understood the factual situation involved in the above case and in paragraphs 2 and 3 it has elaborated the contentions urged on either side and has formed an opinion that a prima facie case exists in the matter. However, while granting the stay, the appellate authority exercised its discretion and did not grant absolute stay in the matter. 6. Having referred to Ext.P8, we do not think that a tailor made or mechanical order has been passed in the matter. The appellate authority has narrated the entire facts, applied to law on the point and arrived at a conclusion which cannot be termed as erroneous. That apart since the learned Judge did not feel it necessary to exercise the discretion to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the appellate authority, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment. 7. However, as requested by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, the time for depositing amount is extended by one month from today and there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. With the above observation, the appeal is dismissed.