IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16583 of 2008(Y) ----------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M/S.WIPRO LIMITTED.,CHEROOTY ROAD,KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (INDIRECT TAXES) MR. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA SRI.TERRY V.JAMES RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 16583 OF 2008 Y -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P4. It is an order by which the petitioner is visited with a penalty in a sum of Rs.1,10,35,936/= under Section 45A of the KGST Act. Petitioner has preferred Ext.P5 Revision Petition accompanied by Ext.P6 application for stay. Petitioner has already invoked the remedy under the Act. Heard the learned Government Pleader also. I feel that the challenge to the imposition of penalty need not be entertained in this Writ Petition. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that this is a case where the illegality is patent, particularly in regard to the amount of the penalty which is imposed. It is pointed out that Section 45A of the Act contemplates imposition of penalty only at the rate of twice the tax sought to be evaded. He points out that in Ext.P4, however, the Intelligence Officer has calculated twice the amount of tax including interest on the tax which is clearly impermissible. I WPC. 16583/08 Y 2 am sure that this is a question which should engage the attention of the Revisional Authority which will consider this aspect also when passing orders on Ext.P6 stay petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider and take a decision on Ext.P6 application seeking stay, in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Till such time as a decision is taken as aforesaid, revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. Petitioner will produce a copy of this Judgment before the second respondent as soon as it is made available to it. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.