IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10825 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD., CC-XXIV/2045 (A), INDIRA GANDHI ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 009, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, S.SANJEEV. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR SRI.KURYAN THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB), COMMERCIAL TAXES FACILITATION CENTRE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-3. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERRY. BY SHRI.C.K.GOVINDAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 10825 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 7th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 order whereunder huge amount of penalty is levied on petitioner for attempting evasion of tax through under valuation of palm oil imported and sold by petitioner. The import and sale of palm oil by petitioner through railway wagons led to lot of controversies. Petitioner's case is that it is on account of pressure of various governmental agencies, penalty happenned to be levied. I do not think that there is any need for this Court to consider the detailed facts of the case because the penalty order is challenged in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). Even though, the penalty order is issued and appeal is filed against the same, I feel, in this case, the Intelligence Officer should have waited for completion of assessment or atleast should have called for and verified the details of returns and payments of tax made by the petitioner during the year 2007-08 before levying penalty. Even according to the petitioner, full quantitiy was sold in 2007-08 and petitioner has remitted the tax of around Rs.39 lakhs. If petitioner's case is correct, then of course, the only matter to be examined is the under WP(C) No. 10825/2008 -2- valuation of palm oil. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of granting stay against Ext.P6 recovery proceedings for three months from now on petitioner remitting Rs.5 lakhs within two weeks from now. There will be direction to the Assessing Officer to complete the assessments upto and including the year 2007-08 within two months from today, after verifying accounts and after issuing pre-assessment notice and after hearing the petitioner. Petitioner will produce copy of the judgment immediately before the Assessing Officer for compliance and petitioner will co-operate with the assessments. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to take up the appeal and consider the propriety and correctness of penalty order after refering to the assessment orders to be issued by the Assessing Officer and dispose of the appeal against penalty order within three months from today. However, after verification of books of accounts by the Assessing Officer, if it is found that payment of tax claimed by petitioner based on which this judgment is delivered is not correct, he is directed to bring it to the notice of this Court through review of this judgment. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg