IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21367 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- U.BASHEER, S/O.E.P.ALIKUTTY, UTTERI HOUSE, KUTHIRAVATTOM P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR. R.RAMADAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.I, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.), KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 21367 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 29th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P1 penalty order passed by the departmental authorities projecting the tax liability as more than Rs. 8 lakhs and imposing the penalty which is double the tax amount, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal, along with Ext.P3 petition for stay. Pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment passed by this Court, directing to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 petition for stay, the appellate authority passed Ext.P6 order; whereby all further proceedings were intercepted, on condition that, the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that the actual tax liability was subsequently quantified by the assessing authority based on the 'books of accounts' as per Ext.P7; wherein it is fixed as Rs.1,78,790.90, ie. less than the amount already paid, by an extent of Rs. 25,447/-. This being the position, the learned counsel submits that, imposing of penalty vide Ext.P1 is absolutely without any rhyme or reason and that the actual position should have been reflected while considering Ext.P3 petition for stay as well. It is further pointed out that, Ext.P7 assessment order has been subjected to challenge by filing Ext.P8 appeal before the second respondent, along with Ext.P9 petition for stay. The case projected in the Writ Petition is that, it is without any regard to the WP (C) No. 21367 of 2009 : 2 : pendency of the proceedings as above, that the respondents are proceeding against the petitioner, which hence is sought to be intercepted. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Considering the particular facts and circumstances and also the quantification of the actual liability by the assessing authority vie Ext.P7, the second respondent is directed to consider and finalize Ext.P2 appeal (in respect of Ext.P1 penalty) and also Ext.P8 appeal (involving Ext.P7 assessment order) in accordance with law, on condition that the petitioner remits a sum of Rs.1 lakh within two weeks and on furnishing security as prescribed in Ext.P7 for the balance amount. On such an event, the second respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders in Exts.P2 and P8 appeals, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, till such appropriate orders are passed on Exts. P2 and P8 appeals, the coercive steps stated as being pursued against the petitioner, shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd