IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2008 / 18TH ASHADHA 1930 WA.No. 1424 of 2008() -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.16502/2008 Dated 03/06/2008 .................... APPELLANT - PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- 1. PRINCE TMT STEELS PVT. LTD., BLOCK NO .34, KINFRA WISE PARK, KANJIKODE PALAKKAD 678 621, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR - T.K.ABDUL KAREEM. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM 682 015. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (RECOVERY), COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD 678 001. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH RESPONDENTS - RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, SPECIAL TEAM OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INTELIGENCE), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM - 68 024. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM - 682 015. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (RECOVERY), COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD - 678 001. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: vsv J.B.Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ===================== W.A.No.1424 of 2008 ===================== Dated this the 9th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT Koshy,J. The appellant is a registered dealer engaged in the business of manufacture and sales of MS Bars/Rods. An inspection was held on 15.11.2006 in the premises of the appellant by Commercial Tax Officer and documents were seized. The appellant was issued notice under Section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 by the first respondent imposing a penalty of Rs.14,60,300/- being double the amount of tax allegedly sought to be evaded on the basis of certain defects alleged. The first respondent has confirmed the imposition of penalty and the appellant filed an appeal before the second respondent along with an application for stay. The stay petition was heard by the second respondent. After observing that there is prima facie case, stay was granted on condition that the appellant remits 40% of the penalty amount and furnish security for the balance amount. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that after holding that there is prima facie case, it should not have directed such huge amount to be deposited. The learned Judge correctly held WA 1424/08 -: 2 :- that stay either absolute or conditional can be granted. "Prima facie case" only means that there is an arguable case. If there is no prima facie case, the stay petition can be dismissed and if there is prima facie case or arguable case, the question of issuance of stay arises. In connected cases, the appellate authority granted stay on condition of depositing 1/3rd of the amount demanded. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that if 1/3rd of the amount demanded is deposited before 10th August, 2008, stay shall be granted and thereafter, the appellate authority shall dispose of the matter. We therefore slightly modify the order that on payment of 1/3rd of the amount demanded as penalty on or before 10.8.2008, stay shall be granted and the appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. J.B.Koshy, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 15/7