IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29070 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SRI. SHANAVAS M.S., RAIHANATH NIVAS, LEJENATH WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALLEPPEY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR (RR) AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, ALLEPPEY. 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (COMMERCIAL TAXES), ALLAPPEY. 5. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 29070 OF 2008 I ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T Writ petition has been taken up for final hearing by the consent of the parties. I heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 2. Petitioner has pressed before me two complaints. Firstly, he points out that aggrieved by the order passed imposing penalty under section 67(1) of the KVAT Act, petitioner preferred appeal and also filed application seeking stay. Ext.P6 order came to be passed granting stay on condition that the petitioner pays 50% of the penalty and furnishes adequate security for the balance amount. He further points out that Ext.P6 is passed mechanically against the dictum of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Supreme Electrical Enginerring (P) Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer [2008 (3) KLT 805]. I feel that Ext.P6 cannot be sustained and accordingly, Ext.P6 is quashed and the 2nd WPC.29070/08 : 2 : respondent will take up the application for stay and pass fresh orders in accordance with law, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such orders are passed, recovery steps will be kept in abeyance. Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent as soon as it is received. 3. The further complaint of the petitioner is that though the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 petition seeking to get the delay condoned in filing the application for compounding before the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent has not passed any order thereon so far. Without expressing any view on the merits or the maintainability of the petition, there will be a further direction to the 4th respondent to consider and take a decision on Ext.P4 in accordance with law, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks