IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 31025 of 2007(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- DHANALAKSHMI TIMBERS,PULIMOOTTIL ROSE BANGALOW,VALACODE,PUNALUR,KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PARTNER G.SHENBAGARAMAN. BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB), COMMERCIAL TAXES,KOLLAM 673 307. 2. INSPECTING ASSITANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTARAKKARA-691 506. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES,KOLLAM-673 307. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 31025 OF 2007 - R = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T In this case, following Exts. P2 and P2(a) notices and considering Ext. P3 reply, penalty was imposed on the petitioner by Exts. P4 and P4(a) orders. It is stated that against Exts. P4 and P4 (a), petitioner filed Exts.P5 and P5(a) revisions before the 3rd respondent. This writ petition was filed at a time when Ext. P6 demand notice was issued to the petitioner. It is now seen that the stay petitions filed along with the revisions was heard by the 3rd respondent who passed Ext. P7 order granting stay on condition that the petitioner remits 50% of the penalty and furnishing security for the balance amount to the satisfaction of the assessing authority. 2. Having regard to the fact that the statutory remedy of revision has already been pursued by the petitioner by filing Exts. P5 and P5(a) before the 3rd respondent, I do not think it proper for W.P.(C) No. 31025 OF 2007 - 2 - this Court to examine the merits of the contentions that have been raised. At this stage it is for the statutory authority to consider those contentions and render a decision. However, I do not think that the revisional authority was justified in imposing a condition that the petitioner should remit 50% of the penalty amount as a condition for granting stay. I feel, in the fitness of things it will be proper to direct that the petitioner shall deposit 1/3rd of the penalty amount and furnish security for the balance as a condition for granting stay. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: That the 3rd respondent shall consider Exts. P5 and P5(a) revisions filed by the petitioner against Exts. P4 and P4(a) orders of penalty. This, the 3rd respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. In the meantime, on the petitioner remitting 1/3rd of the amount due under Exts. P4 and P4(a) and furnishing security for the balance amount to the satisfaction of the assessing authority, I direct that there will be a stay of recovery of the penalty amount payable under Exts. P4 and P4(a). The remittance as above shall be W.P.(C) No. 31025 OF 2007 - 3 - made within two weeks from today. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-