IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 8176 of 2011(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VINAYARAJAN K.P., KUNNATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, EAST VELIYATHUNADU, ALUVA (PARTNER OF THE DEFUNCT FIRM SMART INDIA CLOTHING, NO-43/2799, SRM.ROAD, KOCHI-18) BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN SRI.N.R.SAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT) SPECIAL CIRCLE-I, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT THEVARA, ERNAKULAM-682 015. 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO-1, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, EDAPPALLY, ERANAKULAM-682 024. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682 015. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY ADV.SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN, Sr.GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.8176 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by the order imposing penalty as per Ext.P5, the petitioner had preferred statutory appeal before the 3rd respondent, as evidenced from Ext.P6. Ext.P6(a) is the interlocutory application filed, seeking stay. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that, the penalty was imposed without any basis. According to the petitioner, there was no actual suppression of any turn over. It is the contention of the petitioner that, the business was subsequently stopped and due intimation was issued to the authority concerned. During the period when the inspection was conducted, which is the basis for imposing penalty, the petitioner had disclosed all transactions in a correct manner. 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that, without considering pendency of the statutory appeal, now the first respondent is proceeding with the steps for finalising the assessment, on the basis of the order of penalty issued. 2 W.P.(C).No.8176 of 2011 Under the above circumstances, the petitioner seeks interference of this Court to restrain recovery of the amounts covered under the order imposing penalty as well as to restrain the assessments till the disposal of the appeals. 4. Since the matter is in seizin of the statutory appellate authority, I am of the view that, the writ petition can be disposed of on issuing necessary directions to that authority. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6(a) stay petition filed along with the appeal, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as early as possible, at any rate within a period of 1 month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. Needless to say that, while granting the interim relief, the appellate authority shall take note of the contentions raised by the petitioner as narrated above. 7. Till such time orders are passed by the appellate 3 W.P.(C).No.8176 of 2011 authority as directed above, recovery of amounts covered under Ext.P5, shall be kept in abeyance. 8. If the stay petition is disposed of as directed above, and if the petitioner complies with conditions if any stipulated, the 3rd respondent shall dispose of Ext.P6 appeal at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of 2 months thereof. In such case, the assessment now proposed shall not be finalised till the disposal of the appeal. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/