IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2010 / 7TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19211 of 2010(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ AHAMMED SHEREEF, PROPRIETOR, M/S.PLUTHANPURAYIL CRUSHER, CHALAKAL, MARAMPILLY P.O., ALUVA. BY ADVS. SRI.C.K.THANU PILLAI, SRI.K.P.JOY. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.III, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONSER (APPEAL) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERY. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 19211 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of the condition imposed by the appellate authority vide Ext.P4, whereby the petitioner has been directed to satisfy 50% of the disputed amount and to furnish security for the balance, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during pendency of the appeal. 2. The petitioner is running a Metal Crushing Unit. Penalty was imposed upon the petitioner, solely based on the extent of electric consumption and thus fixing the probable turnover. Being aggrieved of the course pursued by the concerned respondent, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 memorandum of appeal along with Ext.P3 petition for stay before the 2nd respondent. On moving the I.A. for stay, the 2nd respondent considered the matter and passed Ext.P4 order directing the petitioner to satisfy 50% of the disputed liability, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, with specific reference to the grounds raised in memorandum of appeal submits that, in spite of highlighting the un-sustainability of the course pursued by the original authority, the same has not been properly appreciated by the appellate authority as well. It is also stated that, the very scheme of the statute as discernible from Section 8(b) providing for compounding contemplates three 2 WP(C) No. 19211/2010 different situations, fixing the liability to an extent of Rs.40,000/-, 1.5 lakhs, and 3.2 lakhs respectively and all these three categories are taken together in a uniform manner, so as to impose the penalty based on the electricity consumption, which is contended as not correct or proper. The learned counsel also submits that, the different units stated as existing within the premises of the petitioner including a welding unit, water pump station etc. have not been duly considered while imposing the condition; which hence is sought to be intercepted in this Writ Petition. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 5. After considering all the contentions raised by the petitioner it appears that, the quantum is slightly on the higher side. Accordingly, this Court finds it fit and proper to have it scaled down to ‘25%’, instead of 50%. The petitioner will continue to have the benefit of interim stay granted by Ext.P4 on condition that, the petitioner deposits ‘25%’ of the disputed amount and furnishes security for the balance within two weeks. The 2nd respondent/appellate authority is directed to consider and finalise Ext.P2 memorandum of appeal in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc