IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 15350 of 2011(P) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- BILAL AHAMMED, HIMALAYAN HANDICRAFTS, KOVALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.M.K.SUBHAKARAN SRI.P.P.VARUGHESE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB)2, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 121. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 15350 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P5 interim order issued by the 3rd respondent appellate authority. The petitioner was imposed with penalty under Section 67(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act 2003 (KVAT Act), with respect to the years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08, as per Exts.P2, P2(a) and P2(b) orders. Challenging the above said orders, the petitioner had approached the 3rd respondent in statutory appeals. Stay petitions filed along with the appeals were disposed of by the 3rd respondent through Ext.P5, granting interim stay of collection of amounts of penalty till the disposal of the appeals, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting 50% of the amounts in dispute and on furnishing security for the balance. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that, the condition imposed through the impugned order is highly rigorous and is causing onerous liability on the petitioner, which he is 2 W.P.(C).No. 15350 of 2011 finding it difficult to comply with. It is also contended that, such a condition was imposed in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind. Petitioner contends that the orders imposing penalty was issued in an arbitrary manner considering unrealistic figures as turn over of the petitioner. Petitioner expects that the appellate authority may grant considerable relief if the appeals are heard and disposed. Under such circumstances, the petitioner seeks interference of this Court for directing an early disposal of the appeals and till then to stay the recovery steps. 3. It is evident from Ext.P5 order that, the appellate authority had adverted to all the main grounds raised in the appeals and also considered the contentions raised at the time of hearing. All such contentions are illustrated in the impugned order. After due consideration of such contentions, the appellate authority arrived at a prima facie conclusion that, violation of statutory requirements has been established before the Intelligence Officer. However, it was found that the merits of the contentions can be considered elaborately at the time of final hearing and 3 W.P.(C).No. 15350 of 2011 disposal of the appeals. Having been found that the petitioner is entitled for granting conditional stay till the disposal of the appeals, the order was issued directing payment of 50% of the amounts due. 4. On evaluation of the impugned order, I am not in agreement with the contentions of the petitioner that the appellate authority had imposed the conditions in a mechanical manner without application of mind. Proper advertence and proper application of mind on the contentions, is explicit on the face of the order itself. However, it is noticed that the appellate authority has not mentioned any specific reason for imposing condition to the extent of 50%. Considering the appeal made by the petitioner to the effect that, the condition is causing onerous liability which is difficult to be complied with, I am inclined to show indulgence in imposing a less rigorous condition and at the same time directing the appellate authority to have an early disposal of the matter. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of the appeals 4 W.P.(C).No. 15350 of 2011 filed against Exts.P2, P2(a) and P2(b) orders imposing penalty, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. Till such time the appeals are disposed of as directed above, in modification of the conditions stipulated in Ext.P5, the respondents are directed to restrain from recovering the amounts covered under Exts.P2, P2(a) and P2(b), subject to condition of the petitioner remitting 1/3rd of the amounts covered under the impugned orders and also on furnishing security Bond for the balance amount, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/