IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32994 of 2009(T) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- P.K.ALI HAJI, STARLIGHT FABRICATION WORKS, COIMBATORE ROAD PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.T.G.ABHILASH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 2. KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM 3. TAHSILDAR (RR) PALAKKAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. --------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 32994 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT 1. Challenge is against Ext.P8 interlocutory order issued by the second respondent tribunal, on stay petitions filed along with two appeals. The matter arises from orders of penalty issued under Section 67 of the KVAT Act. Contention of the petitioner is that, he is engaged in the business of manufacturing tractor trailers and he was collecting lessor amount of tax under the bonafide belief regarding that the item will fall only under the third schedule. But when the audit wing of the department took a different view, he had remitted entire differential amount. Therefore, there was no circumstances warranting imposition of penalty. It is further contended that even if penalty is to be imposed, it could not be imposed to the extent of double the amount of tax due. W.P.(C).NO.32994/2009 2 2. While disposing the stay petitions, the tribunal imposed condition for payment of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. The stay order is impugned on the ground that it is issued on a total non application of mind without advertence to the contentions raised in the appeals. On a perusal of Ext.P8, it is noticed that after enumerating facts of the case, the tribunal passed stay order imposing the condition. 3. However, it is discernible from Ext.P8 that after granting interim stay, the tribunal had posted the appeals for hearing on 24.11.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to argue the matter on the date of the said posting and that he will not seek any further adjournments. Considering the above situation without entering into any opinion on the merits of Ext.P8, I am of the opinion that the matter can be closed directing the appellate tribunal to pass orders on the W.P.(C).NO.32994/2009 3 appeals itself, at the earliest. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to hear the appeals on 24.11.09, itself or any other day to which it is being adjourned, and to pass orders thereon as early as possible at any rate within a period of one month from 24.11.09. 5. Steps for recovery of the amounts covered under P9 and P10 penalty orders shall be kept in abeyance, till orders passed by the second respondent tribunal on the appeals as directed above, on condition of the petitioner furnishing security for the amount in demand, within a period of two weeks from today. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ss/ W.P.(C).NO.32994/2009 4