P.Shahul Hameed vs Commercial Tax Officer on 5 August, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 1328 of 2010()


1. P.SHAHUL HAMEED, NCE MEDICALS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, MANJERI.
                       ...       Respondent

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONR (APPEALS)

3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :05/08/2010

 O R D E R
              J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J.
                  ------------------------------------------
                        W.A.No.1328 of 2010
                  ------------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 5th day of August, 2010

                             JUDGMENT

J.Chelameswar, C.J.

Aggrieved by a judgment dated 22nd June, 2010 in W.P.

(C) No.18935 of 2010, the partially successful writ petitioner

preferred the instant writ appeal.

2. By the two orders marked as Exts.P1 and P2 in the

writ petition, a penalty was imposed on the writ petitioner/appellant

herein under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. Aggrieved by the

same, the appellant carried the matter in appeal, by way of two

appeals. During the pendency of the abovementioned appeals the

appellant herein sought an interim stay of recovery of the penalty

which was the subject matter of the appeals. The appellate authority

granted an interim order of stay on condition that the appellant

herein pays 50% of the penalty and furnish sufficient security bond

for the balance amount. Aggrieved by the same, the

W.A.No.1328 of 2010

– 2 –

abovementioned writ petition came to be filed.

3. By the judgment under appeal, a learned Judge of

this Court thought it fit that the condition of directing the

appellant to pay 50% of the penalty was too onerous and

therefore ordered that the recovery of the penalty should be

stayed on condition that the appellant deposits an amount of

Rs.50000/- and furnishes security for the balance amount

demanded. Not satisfied with the said order, the instant appeal

is filed.

4. We see no reason to interfere with the judgment

under appeal. However, the learned counsel for the appellant

submits that by the order under appeal the appellant was directed

to make the deposit as mentioned above within a period of ten

days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order under appeal

and in view of the fact that the same was not complied with the

order under appeal will become ineffective. He therefore prays

for a reasonable time to comply with the conditions stipulated in

W.A.No.1328 of 2010

– 3 –

the judgment under appeal.

5. Heard Sri.N.Muraleedharan Nair, learned counsel

for the appellant and Sri.K.P.Pradeep, learned Government

Pleader appearing for the respondents. In the circumstances, we

deem it appropriate to permit the appellant to make the deposit

and furnish security as directed by the order under appeal on or

before 14th August, 2010 to avail the benefit of the order under

appeal.

Writ appeal is disposed of accordingly.

J.Chelameswar,
Chief Justice

P.N.Ravindran,
Judge
vns