IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 18TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 23578 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.K.LINK HEALTH CARE (INDIA) PVT.LTD. 35/1854,A-7 SURABHI BUILDING, SOUTH JANATHA ROAD,PALARIVATTOM, REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR,SRI.P.DEVADAS. BY ADV. SRI.RAJU JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INT.), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, EDAPPALLY,ERNAKULAM. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KAKKANADU,KOCHI-682 030. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.23578 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6 interim order passed by the 1st respondent statutory appellate authority, in the appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P1 order imposing penalty. When recovery steps were initiated pending disposal of the appeal and stay petition, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court and in Ext.P5 Judgment this Court directed the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the stay application. In Ext.P6 interim order stay has been granted on condition of the appellant remitting a lump sum amount of Rs.4 lakhs and on furnishing security for the balance amount. According to the appellant the impugned order is passed in a quite mechanical manner, after being found that the petitioner had got a prima facie case. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Normally in an interim order passed by a statutory appellate authority interference under Article 226 is not desirable. Learned Government Pleader vehemently contended that the entire merit of the appeal cannot W.P.(C).23578/09 2 be looked into by the appellate authority at the stage of passing interim orders and after being convinced that there is prima facie case the conditional order of stay has been granted. On going through Ext.P6 order I notice that, after elaborating the contentions of the appellant the observations made by the appellate authority is as follows:- “On going through the contentions raised, I am of the view that there is a prima facie case for the appellant and I feel that there are some areas in which an interference of the appellate authority is warranted. But the extent of the interference cannot be ascertained at this stage without verifying the complete records and relevant documents.” From the above observations it is clear that the appellate authority was convinced of the merit of the appeal and was convinced that there is a prima facie case established warranting interference. But the appellate authority found that the extent of interference cannot be ascertained without making full verification of the relevant documents. Hence it is clear that the appellate authority has not gone deep into the merits of the case in its entirety, which in fact was not supposed to be done by the appellate authority at the stage of passing interim orders. However considering the fact that the appellate authority had found a prima facie case and also considering the fact that the impugned order is one imposing penalty I am inclined to show some indulgence in the matter, especially taking note of the fact W.P.(C).23578/09 3 that the total amount of penalty is Rs.11,26,210/-. 3. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is disposed of modifying Ext.P6 interim order, to the extent of reducing the condition for payment insisted, from Rs.4 lakhs to Rs.2 lakhs. There will be a further direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the appeal as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The modified amount shall be paid within a period of three weeks from today. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb