IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16504 of 2009(G) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M/S.FANTASY SALES CORPORATION, NILAMBUR ROAD, MANJERI. REP. BY N.VALEED, MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADVS. MR.P.RAGHUNATH, MR.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN, SMT.K.B.SUBHAGAMANI. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER(IB)II OFFICE OF THE DC(INT)KOZHIKODE. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR) MANJERI. *ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED: R3. SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE. - SUO - MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 AS PER JUDGMENT DTD.16/06/2009 R1,R2 & ADDL.R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 16504 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 16th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The order passed by the first respondent imposing penalty under Section 45(A) of the KGST Act upon the petitioner was originally subjected to challenge by filing appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), which did not yield positive results. Aggrieved by it, petitioner has preferred second appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kozhikode. The case of the petitioner is that, in spite of filing a petition for a stay along with appeal, it has been dismissed as per Ext.P6 order, without properly appreciating the actual facts and circumstances, which in turn has been subjected to challenge in the present Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, even going by the calculation as given in Ext.P1 at page 14, the computation of interest itself is wrong. In any view of the matter, fixation of the penalty, which can only be double the amount of tax sought to be evaded as reflected in Ext.P1 is without any rhyme or reason (in view of the fact that the liability in this regard can only be around Rs.27 lakhs). The learned counsel further submits that this aspect was omitted to be considered by the Tribunal while passing Ext.P6 order. WP (C) No. 16504 of 2009 : 2 : 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. The Government Pleader points out that, this matter was not properly agitated by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, petitioner had already filed Ext.P7 additional grounds raised in the appeal. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds it fit and proper to have the matter reconsidered, by the Tribunal. In the above circumstances, Ext.P6 order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and all further coercive proceedings taken against the petitioner will stand stayed, on condition that petitioner remits a sum of Rs.27 lakhs by way of 2 installments. The first installment shall be remitted on or before the 10th of July, 2009 and second installment shall be remitted on or before the 10th of August, 2009. On such an event, the appeal preferred by the petitioner before appellate authority shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 3 months from 10.8.2009 In view of the directions given as above, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kozhikode is impleaded 'suo motu' in the prsent Writ Petition and the learned Government Pleader has entered appearance on behalf of the Tribunal, as well. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd