IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20812 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- M/S.PALAKKAD STEELS(P)LTD, V/4/592-1B NIDA, KANJIKODE WEST, PALAKKAD -678 623-REP; ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHRI.BHARAT S TANTIA. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, (SPECIAL TEAM) SQUAD NO.1, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD (R.R). 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,(SPECIAL CIRCLE), COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.20812 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order, which is an order imposing penalty on the petitioner as also Ext.P8 order, by which the appellate authority has imposed the condition of payment of 40% of the penalty and also furnishing of security as a condition for grant of stay. It seeks a direction to forbear from recovering any amount from the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P4 penalty order and Ext.P8 stay order. 2. Petitioner is the manufacturer of M.S. Rods/bars, Angles etc. Alleging stock variation and also excess production on the basis of electricity consumption, after issuing notice to the petitioner and after affording an opportunity to file objection, Ext.P4 order was passed imposing penalty in a sum of Rs.89,67,350/-. According to the authority which imposed the penalty, to produce one tonne of the product in question, it takes only 100 units. This is on the basis of the report of the KSIDC. The petitioner has produced before me Ext.P9, which is a statement taken on the cross-examination of the officer of the KSIDC by some other manufacturer. The petitioner would contend that a perusal of the deposition would show that it is unsafe to rely on the figure of 100 units as stated by the official of WPC.20812/2008. 2 the KSIDC. He also points out that what is in issue is the order of penalty and in such circumstances he submits that the condition imposed of payment of 40% of the amount and giving security for the balance is too onerous. 3. Learned Government Pleader on the other hand points out that this is a case where parallel sets of accounts were maintained by the petitioner. He would also submit that the figures relied on by the assessing authority would show that the penalty imposed cannot be considered to be illegal. 4. Having regard to the fact that the issue relates to penalty and also the deposition of the official of KSIDC, though in another case, I would think that in the interests of justice Ext.P8 can be modified. Accordingly, Ext.P8 is modified and it is ordered that the if the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.26 Lakhs and furnishes security to the satisfaction of the assessing authority within two weeks from today, the proceedings against the petitioner will be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb