IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18596 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- D.PRASAD, DEVI TRADERS, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (W.C.), KOLLAM. 2. THE DY.COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), KOLLAM COMMERCIAL TAXES (KVAT). SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 18596 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenging Ext.P1 order imposing penalty as well as Ext.P2 assessment order passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has preferred Exts.P3 and P4 appeals along with necessary Interlocutory Applications for stay, before the 2nd respondent. On moving the petitions for stay, the 2nd respondent considered the matter and passed Exts.P5 and P6 orders, whereby the petitioner has been directed to satisfy 50% of the due amount and furnish security for the balance amount so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during pendency of the appeal. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P5 and P6, raising many a ground. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the specific case projected from the part of the petitioner has not been properly adverted to while passing Exts.P5 and P6. The contention of the petitioner/appellant has of course been taken note of the appellate authority while considering the petitions for stay. But the effect of consequence of the said contention is no where discussed while passing the impugned orders fixing the liability to an extent of 50% so as to avail the benefit of stay, which forms the subject matter of grievance. It is however contended by the Revenue that the actual 2 WP(C) No. 18596/2010 amount due is nearly 4.5 lakhs, while the tax credit sought to be availed by the petitioner is only to an extent of Rs.1,14,456/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, if the contention of the petitioner is accepted, the balance tax element will only be nearly Rs.29,000/- and the maximum penalty could only be to an extent of double the said extent and hence that the total liability under both the heads could only be less Rs.1 lakh. 4. Taking note of the rival contentions, this Court finds that the matter requires to be considered in detail by the appellate authority and the statutory appeals have to be finalised, so as to solve the issue once and for all. In the said circumstance, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and pass final orders on Exts.P3 and P4 appeals in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the petitioner will continue to have the benefit of interim stay till the proceedings are finalised as above, on condition that the petitioner deposits a total sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) and furnishes security for the balance amount within two weeks. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc