IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2009 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34927 of 2009(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S. TREND ELECTRONICS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VIDEOCON COMMUNICATIONS LTD.) KEERTHI NAGAR JUNCTION, ELAMAKKARA COCHIN, A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY REPRESENTED BY SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, BRANCH COMMERCIAL CONTROLLER. BY ADV. MR.E.P.GOVINDAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.VI, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DY. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE INSPECTING ASST, COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.34927 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Ext.P3 interlocutory order passed on the stay petition filed along with a statutory appeal, is under challenge in this writ petition. Against order imposing penalty the petitioner had filed Ext.P2 appeal before the 2nd respondent. Through Ext.P3 order conditional stay was granted by the appellate authority insisting payment of 1/3rd of the amount in dispute. Contention of the petitioner is that the imposition of penalty was totally unwarranted and there was no materials or basis for imposition of such a huge amount of penalty. Since the statutory appeal is pending consideration and disposal before the 2nd respondent, I am not adverting into merits of the impugned order. On a perusal of Ext.P3 it is noticed that the 2nd respondent has observed as follows:- “I have gone through the contentions raised by the learned Advocate. On going through the records produced, it is seen that the actual suppression noted was regarding the seven units of DVD amounting to Rs.14,612/- and other matters were concerned with certain defects like non submission of F forms and also for non submission of details of purchase return, W.P.(C).34927/09-I 2 sales return, etc. On going through the complete records it is seen that there are certain areas where in an interference of the appellate authority is required. Even though the appellant had explained the defects in detail the Intelligence Officer has not seen met them with a detailed discussion to establish that there is any offence commuted by them. Similarly the reason for a maximum penalty also is not seen explained or established. However at this stage, I am not arriving to finding on the above points, since the complete records are to be verified in detail to ascertain where the claim of the appellant are in order. However, since there is a prima facie case for the appellant, but an unconditional stay cannot be granted for the reason that the records as stated above are to be verified meticulously. Under the above circumstances, the following conditional orders are passed.” 2. It is evident that the appellate authority has adverted to the contentions raised by the petitioner in detail. The appellate authority found that there are certain areas where elaborate consideration is required and such consideration can be possible only when verification of the entire records is made. Further it is found that since a prima facie case is established interim stay can be granted. Accordingly the interim stay till the disposal of the appeal was granted imposing condition for payment of 1/3rd of the amount. W.P.(C).34927/09-I 3 3. Imposition of a condition while granting stay is a matter absolutely coming within the discretion of the appellate authority. Going by Ext.P3 I could not hold that the condition was imposed in any mechanical manner. It is evident that the appellate authority had adverted to the contentions raised in the appeal and had applied its mind, while passing Ext.P3. Therefore the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, impropriety or lack of jurisdiction. Hence I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction vested under Article 226 in order to interfere with such an order. Accordingly the writ petition is deserves no merit and the same is dismissed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb