IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2008 / 29TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29607 of 2008(Y) ----------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- O.M. MATHEW, S/O. O.E. MATHEW, AGED 45 YEARS , ORUMPIKKUNNEL VEEDU, THURUTHICAD, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.S.JOHN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE GOVT. OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT., FINANCE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.I, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. TAHSILDAR, MALLAPPALLY. 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEAL), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 29607 OF 2008 Y -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st October, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exts.P3, P3(a), P5 and P6. Exts.P3 and P3(a) are orders by which the Intelligence Officer has imposed penalty on the petitioner for the assessment years 2005 - 2006 and 2006 - 2007. Petitioner preferred Ext.P4 and P4(a) Appeals and sought interim order. Ext.P6 is passed. As far as the challenge to Exts.P3 and P3(a) are concerned, petitioner has already preferred Appeals and I need not consider the challenge to Exts.P3 and P3(a). Ext.P5 is a revenue recovery notice which has been stayed by Ext.P6 on certain conditions. Therefore, I need only consider the challenge to Ext.P6. As far as the challenge to Ext.P6 is concerned, the Appellate Authority granted stay on condition that the petitioner deposits forty per cent of the penalty imposed and also the petitioner furnishes security for the balance amount. WPC. 29607/08 Y 2 2. Shri T.S. John, learned counsel for petitioner would contend that Ext.P1 would show that the statement in Ext.P6 that no documents were produced in support of the contention that tax was remitted by the Bank, is not correct. He would further submit that actually the petitioner had filed application for compounding, but these transactions were not included, and therefore, even if maximum penalty is to be imposed, it can only be at twice the compounded rate. In this case, however, the penalty is imposed at 12.5 per cent. Learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, submits that this is a case where the petitioner has not cared to file quarterly return. Petitioner has not included all these transactions at all and no option was filed, it is submitted. 3. Having considered the matter, I do not think that this can be treated as a case where the Authority has imposed the conditions in a mechanical manner. But, having regard to all facts, while rejecting the challenge against Ext.P6, petitioner is WPC. 29607/08 Y 3 granted one month's time from today to pay the amount demanded vide Ext.P6. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge