IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9099 of 2010(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S. LOTUS 8 A' PART HOTELS, NEDUMBASSERY ERNAKULAM (DISTRICT) (UNIT: INFRA HOTELS & RESORTS LTD.) REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE MANAGER & AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI. BONNY ALOYSIUS. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (LT), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERRY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,MATTANCHERRY. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDIN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 9099 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 23rd March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the condition imposed as per Ext.P7 whereby a lump sum amount of 'Rs.20 lakhs' was directed to be paid so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the statutory appeal before the appellate authority. Many a ground has been raised in the Writ Petition, as to the sustainability of the condition imposed, mainly contending that the penalty cannot be imposed on the 'estimated turnover' and hence the course and procedure pursued by the authority is wrong and illegal. Reliance is also placed on the decision reported in 38 STC 590 [ S.A. Abdul Basheeth vs. State of Tamilnadu ]. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits on the basis of the materials on record that this is a case where the tax was collected by the petitioner which W.P.(C) No. 9099 OF 2010 2 however was paid to the department only much later pursuant to the steps taken by the department. This is very much evident from the discussion made in Ext.P7 impugned order. This being the position, the contention of the petitioner that the course and procedure pursued by the respondents by imposing the condition is not correct or sustainable and is devoid of any merit, submits the learned Government Pleader. 3. There is considerable force in the said submission. But this Court also finds thst the effect of the dictum cited and sought to be relied on from the part of the petitioner, has not been considered by the appellat authority while passsing the impugned order imposing the condition. Since the entire admitted tax liability has been satisfied by the petitioner, with such other amounts as liable to be paid , this Court finds that the liability now mulcted upon the petitioner can be scaled down to 'Rs.Ten lakhs' instead of 'Rs. Twenty lakhs'. 4. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a a sum of 'Rs. Ten lakhs' forthwith, so as to avail the benefit of the interim stay granted by the appellate authroity. However, finding W.P.(C) No. 9099 OF 2010 3 that the time granted by the appellate authirty vide Ext.P7 is already over, the petitioner is permitted to deposit the above sum of Rs. Ten lakhs within a week from today. On satisfying the requirement as above, the petitioner will continue to enjoy the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the appeal. The appeal proceedings shall be considered and finalised by the appellate authority in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk