IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22510 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ALUVA MUNICIPALITY, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS SRI.ASISH K.JOHN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (L.T.) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERY-682 002. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPELAS) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682 002. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.22510 of 2010-K ---------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner a Local Self Government Institution, is stated as aggrieved of imposition of the penalty under the Luxury Tax, in respect of the assessment year 2006-07 and 2007-08, casting a liability of Rs.3,14,438/-, which is the subject matter of challenge in Ext.P3 appeal preferred before the second respondent, along with Ext.P4 petition for stay. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, after considering the interlocutory application for stay, Ext.P5 order has been passed by the second respondent, whereby the petitioner has been directed to satisfy 25% of the liability and to furnish security for the balance amount, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay, justifiability of which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner Municipality did not use to pay the monthly tax under the firm belief that the petitioner was not liable to satisfy the said liability. But subsequently, when the mistake was realized, W.P(C) No.22510 of 2010-K 2 registration was taken and the liability was being satisfied then and there. When proceedings were initiated to impose penalty, in respect of the assessment year 2006-07 and 2007-08 under Section 17(A) of the Act, the matter was subjected to challenge by filing appeal. On satisfying the position, the respondent/appellate authority was pleased to accept the version of the petitioner and set aside the order imposing penalty, in respect of the said assessment years, as borne by Ext.P1 order. It is without any regard to the above proceedings that, the concerned authority has passed Ext.P2 order in respect of the assessment year 2005-06 imposing a penalty of Rs.3,14,438/-, which is double the amount of Luxury Tax and hence subjected to challenge in Ext.P3 appeal. In view of the nature of the proceedings as above, the learned counsel submits that, direction might be issued to the appellate authority to consider and finalise the appeal. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 5. Considering the sequence of events and nature of the contentions and the proceedings already on record, this Court finds it fit and proper to direct the second respondent/appellate authority to consider and finalise Ext.P3 appeal in accordance with law. W.P(C) No.22510 of 2010-K 3 Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to consider Ext.P3 appeal and pass final orders in accordance with law, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, the petitioner will continue to have the benefit of the interim stay as ordered in Ext.P5 without effecting any advance payment, but for furnishing security to the satisfaction of the authority within two weeks. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab W.P(C) No.22510 of 2010-K 4