IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 12TH BHADRA 1932 RP.No. 785 of 2010(C) ------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.18229/2010 Dated 15/06/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER ------------------------------------- M/S.PAPPUKUTTY BEACH RESORT LTD. LIGHT HOUSE BEACH, KOVALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,MR.P.NATARAJAN, BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY(TAXES),GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.V(SPECIAL(SQUAD) COMMERCIAL TAXES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(APPEALS) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.PRADEEP THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No. 785 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C)No. 18229 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2010 O R D E R The petitioner had approached this Court challenging the condition imposed by the appellate authority, directing the petitioner to satisfy 50% of the disputed amount of penalty and to furnish security, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the appeal. 2. After considering the pleadings raised and also after hearing both the sides, the condition imposed by the appellate authority was scaled down by this Court to '1/3rd' of the liability, directing the petitioner to furnish 'bank guarantee' for the balance amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in compliance with the direction given by this Court to deposit 1/3rd of the due amount, the petitioner has already satisfied the same and that the petitioner might be permitted to furnish security in any form as prescribed under the KVAT rules, 2005, instead of furnishing bank guarantee, which forms the R.P. No. 785 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C)No. 18229 OF 2010 -:2:- subject matter of this Review Petition. 3. Heard learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Going by the pleadings, this Court finds that there is no 'error apparent on the face of the records' to intervene, invoking the power of review. However, taking note of the fact that the petitioner has satisfied the condition to pay 1/3rd of the disputed liability and further since the petitioner is very much entitled under the provisions of the law, particularly the KVAT Rules, to furnish security in any of the forms as prescribed therein (Rule 19(1) of the KVAT Rules r/w Rule 85), the verdict passed by this Court in the Writ Petition will stand modified to the above extent, permitting the petitioner to furnish security in any form as specified by the Rules, instead of furnishing Bank Guarantee. The Review Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ttb