IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10925 of 2010(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED RAFEEK, RAFEEK TRADERS, ERATTUPETTAH, PALA. BY ADVS. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN, SRI.V.V.GEORGEKUTTY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALA. 2. THE INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALA. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.10925 of 2010-M ---------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the condition imposed by the appellate authority vide Exts.P3 and P3(a), directing to satisfy 50% of the penalty imposed, and to furnish the security for the balance amount within two weeks, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already satisfied the tax liability with interest, which has not been taken care of while imposing penalty upon the petitioner, which is the subject matter to challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that the course of events is very much discernible from the impugned orders ie Exts.P1 and P1(a). It has been specifically referred therein that the tax liability was sought to be satisfied by way of 'cheque', which however was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and it was in the said circumstances, W.P(C) No.10925 of 2010-M 2 particularly when there was no reply to the intimation served nor did the petitioner remit the tax, that the authority concerned was constrained to pass Exts.P1 and P1(a) orders imposing penalty upon the petitioner, which have been subjected to challenge by filing Exts.P2 and P2(a) appeals before the appellate authority. The learned Government Pleader also submits that no tenable ground has been raised in the memorandum of appeal, but for the contention that the quantum of penalty is excessive. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits, with reference to the 'Ground 4' of Ext.P2 and P2(a), that the tax liability with interest has already been remitted by challan No.205 dated 22.2.2010. The subsequent event of satisfying the liability will not absolve the defaulter from the penal consequences. It is after considering the facts and circumstances that the appellate authority has chosen to impose a condition directing the petitioner to satisfy 50% of the penalty, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during pendency of the appeal; which can't be termed as arbitrary or illegal. Absolutely no interference is warranted. The Writ Petition is devoid of any merit or bonafides and it is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab //True Copy//