IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 W.P(C).No. 7071 of 2008 (P) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SMT. SUJATHA VENUGOPAL, PROPRIETRIX, SUPER LPG SERVICES, 50/174A, PONEVAZHI ROAD, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN-24. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH JERARD SAMSOM RODRIGUES RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERY AT ALUVA 2. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERY AT ALUVA 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON 12/03/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =================== W.P.(C) NO. 7071 OF 2008 P =================== Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P8 order by which conditional stay has been granted on deposit of 50% of the penalty levied on the petitioner. The relevant facts are that following Ext.P1 shop inspection report of the petitioner, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P2 notice of detention demanding security, the reasons of which are stated in Ext.P2 itself. Thereafter, the goods were released on furnishing security pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment of this court. Subsequently, on an application made by the petitioner, the irregularity of shortage of lighters noticed on verification of the accounts was compounded by payment of Rs.3,500/- as the compounding fee. The order passed in this behalf is Ext.P4. 2. Petitioner submits that despite Ext.P4, the 1st respondent proceeded with the matter and passed Ext.P5 order levying penalty of Rs.1,59,140/- and issued Ext.P6 notice of WPC NO.7071/08 :2 : Demand. Thereupon, petitioner filed Ext.P7 appeal and Ext.P7(a) stay petition before the 3rd respondent. The stay petition was heard and the 3rd respondent passed Ext.P8 of conditional stay and it is challenging the said order this writ petition is filed. 3. The contention raised was that Ext.P8 is mechanical and without adverting to the contentions urged. It was mainly contended that once an offence is compounded and fee is paid, the offender cannot be visited with any other penalty for the same offence. This argument was sought to be supported by referring to the judgment of this court in P.P. Varkey & Co. Vs. Sales Tax Officer-I, Chalakudy and Others (1999 KTR 585). 4. Having considered the matter, I find that this contention is not seen adverted to by the 3rd respondent in Ext.P8 order. True as contended by the counsel, the judgment referred to above lays down the proposition that once compounding fee is paid, the assessee cannot be visited with any other consequences. In view of this, prima facie, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for stay and in my view, there is no justification for imposing the condition as done in Ext.P8. WPC NO.7071/08 :3 : Therefore, quashing Ext.P8, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions. 1) That the 3rd respondent shall dispose of Ext.P7 appeal with notice to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 2) In the meantime, further proceedings for recovery of the penalty levied as per Ext.P5 will stand stayed for 10 weeks from today. 3) The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp