IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 9051 of 2010(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.COMPUTER GRAPHICS LTD, 42/2431-B ST.BENEDICT'S JUNCTION, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, SRI.K.VENKAT SAI. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.T.G.ABHILASH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT), SPECIAL CIRCLE - 1, ERNAKULAM. 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SQUAD NO.II, MATTANCHERY AT KARUKUTTY. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 4. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOCHI-30. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ....................................................................... WP (C) NO. 9051 OF 2010 ............................................... Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenging Exhibit P1 order imposing penalty and Exhibit P2 order of assessment, the petitioner has filed Exhibit P3 and P4 appeals before the Statutory/Appellate Authority, along with Exhibit P5 and Exhibit P6 petitions for stay. After considering the merits of the case, the Appellate Authority passed Exhibit P7 common order, directing the petitioner to pay 50% of the amount due and to furnish security for the balance amount, to the satisfaction of the Assessing Authority, which in turn forms the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. It is stated that there is no rationale for imposing the condition in Exhibit P7, to such an extent. 2. Learned Government Pleader submits, referring to the materials on record that, there was an inspection WP (C) NO. 9051 OF 2010 2 whereupon large scale evasion/suppression was detected and it was in the said circumstances, that the matter was considered and the assessing authority imposed the penalty to the extent as specified. It is also stated by the learned Government Pleader that the relevant facts and figures have been considered meticulously by the authorities, while passing the impugned orders and hence that there is no merit or bonafides with regard to the challenge raised in the appeals filed before the third respondent. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is rather with regard to the sustainability of the condition imposed. Taking note of, the quantum of penalty imposed as per Exhibit P1 and the balance tax and interest due to be recovered vide Exhibit P2 assessment order, 50% of the said liability now ordered to be satisfied to avail the benefit of interim stay cannot be said as arbitrary or unreasonable. More so, when the course and events have been specifically dealt with by WP (C) NO. 9051 OF 2010 3 the authorities who passed Exhibit P1 and P2. The only question to be considered is whether the order imposing the condition has been passed in quite a mechanical or stereo typed manner. Going by Exhibit P7 it is very much discernible that the third respondent/appellate authority has referred to the actual facts and circumstances revealed from the materials on record. It is also observed therein that, on going through the grounds of appeal, prima facie it appeared that the appellant had no proper explanation for the stock variation. It is after considering the relevant aspects as above, that the condition was imposed, directing the petitioner to satisfy 50% of the disputed liability. This being the position, it cannot be said that Exhibit P7 interim order passed by the third respondent is not a 'speaking one' or that it is without proper application of mind. The challenge raised by the petitioner is not sustainable. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. WP (C) NO. 9051 OF 2010 4 However, taking of the fact that the time stipulated in Exhibit P7 to satisfy the condition stands already expired, the petitioner is granted a further period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, so as to satisfy the condition and avail the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the appeal. Sd/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. True copy PA to Judge rkc