IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5999 of 2009(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- RAJU GEORGE, PROPRIETOR, KERALA WOOD INDUSTRIES AND SAW MILL, POLAYATHODU, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKKAD. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.III, COMMERCIAL TAXES, NEETHI NAGAR, PATTATHANAM.P.O. PUNALUR, KOLLAM. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 3. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (RECOVERY), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. K.B. PRADEEP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.5999 of 2009-T = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner, an assessee under the KVAT Act, faces a penalty order on alleged suppression of taxable turnover leading to imposition of penalty rated as double the assessed evaded tax. The imposition was made following inspection of the premises of the petitioner, who deals in timber and also has allied activities of sawing and supply. It is also contended that different customers even bring timber for utilizing the sawing facility. It is accordingly contended that the total amount of suppression is without any basis. The Appellate Authority in considering the application for stay pending appeal against the order of penalty found that there is a prima facie case in the contentions of the appellant, the writ petitioner and imposed a condition of WP(C)5999/2009 -: 2 :- 40% of the total amount as condition for stay. The fact remains that the petitioner has been charged with penalty equivalent to double the evaded tax as alleged. The contentions are placed by the writ petitioner in his appeal against the penalty order and the quality of materials on record essentially inspires, as rightly found by the Appellate Authority, that the appeal is prima facie strong. Taking into consideration various aspects, including the contents of the penalty order and materials on which that order was issued and after having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, it is ordered that the impugned stay order will stand modified to the effect that the said order of stay will continue if the petitioner remits Rs.10 lakhs within two weeks from now. If such amount is deposited, the Appellate Authority will consider expediting the final consideration and disposal of the WP(C)5999/2009 -: 3 :- petitioner's appeal against the penalty order by taking it out of turn and disposing it off, in accordance with law since the delay in considering that may impair further proceedings which are shown to have been initiated against the petitioner for escaped assessment. Such assessment proceedings could continue but will not be finalized till the Appellate Authority decides on the appeal against the penalty order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/270209