IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2010 / 16TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29806 of 2010 (A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.I.MARKETING PVT. LTD., NO.20/40/2, FIRST FLOOR, PENTA WORLD BUILDING, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.RAHUL VENUGOPAL RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.II, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/10/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 29757 OF 2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NOs. 29806 OF 2010 AND 29757 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge in these Writ Petitions is against Ext.P6 orders in both these cases, issued by the statutory appellate authority on the stay petitions filed along with statutory appeals. After elaborate consideration of the grounds raised in the appeals, the authority found that the appellants have established a prima facie case for granting conditional stay and imposed conditions for payment of 50% of the tax amount due. 2. Eventhough the petitioner had raised various contentions challenging validity of Ext.P6 orders, I am of the considered opinion that those orders could not be termed as one issued without application of mind. It reflects elaborate consideration of the grounds raised in the appeal and proper application of mind by the 2 WP(C) No. 29806/2010 & 29757/2010 appellate authority with respect to those contentions. Merely because the conditions stipulated works out to cast onerous liability on the petitioner because of its rigorous nature, it may not be proper for this Court to interfere with such conditions, which according to me is a matter coming purely within the discretion of the appellate authority. Therefore I am of the opinion that the Writ Petitions deserve no merit warranting interference. 3. However, it is brought to my notice that the appeals pertains to orders imposing penalty under Section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. It is stated that, pursuant to recovery steps initiated the Bank Accounts of the petitioner were attached. At that time the petitioner had approached this Court in WP(C) 14636/2010. Eventhough this Court permitted release of the attachments subject to condition of the petitioner furnishing Bank Guarantee to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs, the stipulation was not complied with. Subsequently this Court was 3 WP(C) No. 29806/2010 & 29757/2010 approached in WP(C) 25970/2010 seeking direction for disposal of the appeals and the stay petitions. It is consequent to the directions issued by this Court, the appellate authority had now passed the impugned orders, Ext.P6. 4. Drawing my attention to the facts as stated above, Sri.K.Ramkumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that, necessary directions may be issued for appropriating the amounts already recovered through attachment of the Bank Accounts, against the liability for payment of 50% stipulated in Ext.P6 orders. I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to comply with the conditions for payment of 50%, less amounts if any already recovered. It is also made clear that the petitioner should be permitted to make payment of the balance amount in two instalments. 5. Therefore the respondents are directed to keep in abeyance all recovery steps, if the petitioner makes 4 WP(C) No. 29806/2010 & 29757/2010 payment of the balance amount to satisfy the condition, in two equal instalments to be paid within a period of three months, the first of which will fall due within 45 days from today. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc