IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4613 of 2010(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.KALYAN JEWELERS KOLLAM & ERODE, ZAIN TOWER, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, T.S.KALYANARAMAN. BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, DEPT.OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM AT KOTARAKKARA. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONR (APPEALS) DEPT.OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 3. THE INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONR DEPT.OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 4613 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 17th February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pursuant to the surprise inspection of the premises of the petitioner, conducted by the first respondent, various incriminating circumstances were brought to light , which led to penalty proceedings as borne by Ext. P1 order passed by the first respondent. Being aggrieved of the same, the petitioner has preferred Ext. P2 appeal before the second respondent. Since coercive proceedings were pursued during the pendency of the appeal proceedings, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.1523 of 2010 which led to Extr.P4 judgment, whereby direction was given to consider the interlocutory application for stay and to pass appropriate orders thereon, simultaneously intercepting the coercive proceedings till such time. Pursuant to Ext. P4 verdict, the I.A. for stay was considered by the second respondent and Ext. P5 order has been passed granting interim stay on condition that the petitioner satisfied 50% of the penalty imposed and furnished adequate security for the balance amount, which forms the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition. W.P.(C) No. 4613 OF 2010 2 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding and reasoning given by the second respondent in Ext.P5 are not correct or sustainable and that the only reason given is non-production of stock register. 3. The learned Government Pleader, referring to the actual facts and circumstances, particularly with regard to the contents of Ext. P1 penalty order, submits that quite a lot of unaccounted sales were unearthed on the particular day of inspection and that there is wide disparity with regard to the actual facts and figures submitted from the part of the petitioner. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that as against the alleged entrustment of 2.4 Kgms of gold with M/s. Muthoot Bankers, the actual discrepancy is to an extent of 26 Kgms. The Learned Counsel also submits that the facts and figures available on record have been properly considered and that the finding in Ext. P5 is well supported by reasons. 4. This Court finds it difficult to accept the versions put forth from the part of the petitioner and to interfere with Ext.P5 order. The order is well supported with reasons and there is W.P.(C) No. 4613 OF 2010 3 proper application of mind. The petitioner is well at liberty to agitate the matter in appeal, before the second respondent, in the course of finalisation of the proceedings. However, taking note of the huge amount involved, the condition imposed by the second respondent to satisfy 50% of the penalty, is hereby reduced to 1/3rd, which will meet the ends of justice. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to satisfy 1/3rd of the penalty imposed upon the petitioner in place of 50% ordered in Ext.P5. However, since the time stipulated by the second respondent in Ext.P5 is already over, the petitioner is permitted to remit the same within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. But for variation as above, Ext. P5 is left in tact . On satisfying the requirement as above, the petitioner will continue to enjoy the benefit of interim order granted by the second respondent, till the disposal of the appeal. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk