IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 23833 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- C.C.THOUFEEQ, M/S.SHALIMAR GRANITES, PUTHIYARODE, CHERUKODE, VALLAPUZHA P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. MR. N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR MS. K.HYMAVATHY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB), COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 23833 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 26th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Challenging Exts. P1 to P3 orders imposing penalty upon the petitioner in respect of the assessment years 2005 - '06 to 2007 - '08, the petitioner has preferred Exts. P4 to P6 appeals along with Exts.P7 to P9 petition for stay, before the second respondent. After considering the facts and figures, the second respondent passed Ext.P10 common order granting interim stay during pendency and finalization of the appeal, subject to the condition that, the petitioner remitted 40 % of the amount allegedly due in respect of the concerned assessment years. The case of the petitioner is that, after keeping the appeals pending for nearly 10 months by the second respondent, it was not at all correct or proper to have come up with Ext.P10 order passed by the end of July, 2009, demanding 40 % of the amount due, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, this is more so in view of the fact that no effective adjudication is made as the assessment is yet to be completed and imposition of penalty is merely referring to the 'consumption of electricity', which is not correct or proper. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the 'consumption of electricity' is very much a WP (C) No. 23833 of 2009 : 2 : sustainable ground for imposing the penalty. But the fact to be considered is whether that could have been the sole yardstick, so as to have fixed the penalty; that too, for granting the interim order keeping the appeals filed 10 months back, in cold storage. 3. Considering the facts and circumstance, this Court finds it fit and proper to have the appeals considered and disposed of in accordance with law at the earliest. Accordingly, Ext.P10 order is set aside and the second respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P4 to P6 appeals in accordance with law, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till the proceedings are finalized as above, all further proceedings pursuant to Exts. P11 to P13 demand notices issued under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, shall be be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd