IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2008 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 36502 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., ERNAKULAM TERRITORY (RETIAL) OFFICE, IRUMPANAM, KOCHI 682 309, REP. BY ITS AREA MARKETING MANAGER SRI. S. KANNAN. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SMT.S.AMINA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ASSESSMENT-1, SPECIAL CIRCLE -II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM 682 030, 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 030. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI 682 030. BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 36502 OF 2008 U -------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th December, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exts.P9 to P12 orders and Ext.P12 and P12(a) revenue recovery notices. Petitioner also seeks a direction not to proceed with the recovery steps pursuant to Exts.P1 to P3 orders. A further direction is sought to dispose of Exts.P6, P7 and P8 Appeals. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Petitioner Company has been visited with orders assessing to tax and besides the same, petitioner is also called upon to pay penalty. Petitioner preferred Appeals. Orders have been passed granting stay of collection of tax and penalty subject to conditions. As far as the order granting stay in relation to the penalty proceedings is concerned, petitioner has been called upon to remit thirtyfive per cent of the penalty amount and furnish sufficient security bond for the balance. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the WPC.36502/08 U 2 Appellate Authority has, in fact, taken the view that the assessing authority has not established any malafide intention on the petitioner and it is a pure question of law which can be answered after a detailed hearing. The main issue, of course, in relation to the penalty is whether the petitioner is liable under Section 5(2) of the KGST Act and whether affixture of the name “Bharat Gas” was only for the purpose of identification of the marketing Company was done as per law and it is not done as a brand name. I would think, having regard to the totality of facts, that the interest of justice would suffice, if the petitioner is called upon to pay a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs (Rupees Ten Lakhs) and the petitioner must furnish security for the balance amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that actually amounts are due to the petitioner. Petitioner has been called upon to remit fifty per cent of the amount in the Appeal against the assessment. After having gone through the order, I feel that the interest of justice would be met, if the petitioner is called upon to pay thirty per cent of the amount instead of fifty per cent WPC.36502/08 U 3 and the petitioner must furnish security for the balance amount. It is ordered accordingly. Petitioner is given two weeks' time from today to comply with this order. The Appeals will be taken up and disposed of immediately after the conditions are fulfilled by the petitioner and disposed of within three months from the date of fulfillment of the conditions. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge