IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2011 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 16192 of 2011(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NEETHU RAJAN, ST.NICOHOLAS CASHEW EXPORTS,PALAVILA RAJ HOUSE, NALLILA P.O.,KOLLAM REP.BY Y .RAJAN, POWER OF ATTORENY HOLDER BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASST.COMMISSIONER-III COMMERCIAL TAXES SPEICAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM-691001 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, (INVESTIGATION BRANCH) KOLLAM-691001 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,KOLLAM-691001 4. INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM-691001 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16192 of 2011(Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BYTHE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.27.2.2010 EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD.8.3.2011. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.27.5.2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.16192 of 2011-Y ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3 interim order issued by the 3rd respondent appellate authority. The petitioner had preferred statutory appeal as evidenced from Ext.P2, against Ext.P1 order through which penalty was imposed under Section 67(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act). Along with the appeal the petitioner had preferred stay petition. The appellate authority had disposed of the stay petition granting interim stay subject to condition of payment of 50% of the amounts due and on furnishing security for the balance. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the condition for payment of 50% of the amount was imposed by the 3rd respondent in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind and without due advertence to the grounds raised in the appeal. It is contended that the penalty was imposed on a totally baseless allegations and W.P(C) No.16192 of 2011-Y 2 the petitioner is expecting considerable relief from the appellate authority. It is further stated that the rigorous condition imposed is causing onerous liability on the petitioner, which is not possible to her to comply with, at present. Hence the petitioner seeks interference of this Court. 3. Considering pendency of the statutory appeal, I am not proposing to go into merits of the contentions raised against the impugned order of penalty. On a perusal of Ext.P3, it is evident that the appellate authority had illustrated all the main contentions raised and had appreciated merits of such contentions. Therefore, I am not in agreement with the petitioner for holding that the impugned order was issued in a mechanical manner without application of mind. 4. However, it is evident that the appellate authority had observed that, the imposition of penalty to the maximum extent is correct or not, is a matter which need be examined in detail. It is further observed that the appellant W.P(C) No.16192 of 2011-Y 3 had made out prima facie case for granting conditional stay. However, it is noticed that the appellate authority has not mentioned any specific reason for insisting payment to the extent of 50%. 5. Considering the above said factual circumstances, I am of the view that interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the appellate authority to have an early disposal of the appeal and till then to restrain the recovery, subject to imposition of a less rigorous condition. 6. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 7. Till such time, the appeal is disposed of recovery of the amounts covered under Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting 1/3rd of the amount due and on furnishing Security Bond for W.P(C) No.16192 of 2011-Y 4 the balance amount. The above relief is granted in modification of the condition imposed under Ext.P3. The condition as stipulated above shall be complied within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab