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. 9044 of 2010(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.PUTHENVEETTIL CONSTRUCTIONS,CHEPPAD PO,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY SUNIL PHILIP MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER(IN-CHARGE OF IB) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM. 3. INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,CHENGANNUR. 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. 9044 OF 2010 ............................................... Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T ≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈ The first respondent has imposed a penalty upon the petitioner as per Exhibit P3 Order, aggrieved of which the petitioner has filed Exhibit P4 Appeal before the 2nd respondent, along with an interlocutory application for stay. 2. After considering the IA for stay, the 2nd respondent passed Exhibit P5 order, whereby the petitioner has been directed to satisfy 1/3 of the penalty amount within 2 weeks, however without mentioning any reason for imposing the condition, despite the fact that the petitioner had brought a prima facie case as observed in Exhibit P5 itself. 3. Heard the Government Pleader as well. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, WP (C) NO. 9044 OF 2010 2 there is absolutely no question of any evasion or suppression and that the entire turn over has been reflected in the return and that the only mistake committed was in respect of the name shown. Eventhough this aspect was highlighted before the Appellate Authority, while passing Exhibit P5 interim order, liability to satisfy 1/3rd of the amount in dispute was mulcted upon the shoulders of the petitioner which hence is under challenge in this writ petition. 5. After taking note of the specific contentions raised in the Writ Petition and also observing that Exhibit P5 is not a speaking order, at all, this Court finds that the Appellate Authority could be directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P4 appeal. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to consider Exhibit P4 appeal in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible at WP (C) NO. 9044 OF 2010 3 any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. It is also made clear that till such final orders are passed on Exhibit P4 appeal, all further coercive steps shall be kept in abeyance The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. rkc