IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9051 of 2010(F)
1. M/S.COMPUTER GRAPHICS LTD, 42/2431-B
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT),
... Respondent
2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES,
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),
4. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :18/03/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
.......................................................................
WP (C) NO. 9051 OF 2010
...............................................
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
———————-
Challenging Exhibit P1 order imposing penalty and
Exhibit P2 order of assessment, the petitioner has filed
Exhibit P3 and P4 appeals before the Statutory/Appellate
Authority, along with Exhibit P5 and Exhibit P6 petitions for
stay. After considering the merits of the case, the Appellate
Authority passed Exhibit P7 common order, directing the
petitioner to pay 50% of the amount due and to furnish
security for the balance amount, to the satisfaction of the
Assessing Authority, which in turn forms the subject matter
of challenge in this writ petition. It is stated that there is
no rationale for imposing the condition in Exhibit P7, to
such an extent.
2. Learned Government Pleader submits, referring to
the materials on record that, there was an inspection
WP (C) NO. 9051 OF 2010
2
whereupon large scale evasion/suppression was detected
and it was in the said circumstances, that the matter was
considered and the assessing authority imposed the penalty
to the extent as specified. It is also stated by the learned
Government Pleader that the relevant facts and figures
have been considered meticulously by the authorities, while
passing the impugned orders and hence that there is no
merit or bonafides with regard to the challenge raised in
the appeals filed before the third respondent.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is rather with regard
to the sustainability of the condition imposed. Taking note
of, the quantum of penalty imposed as per Exhibit P1 and
the balance tax and interest due to be recovered vide
Exhibit P2 assessment order, 50% of the said liability now
ordered to be satisfied to avail the benefit of interim stay
cannot be said as arbitrary or unreasonable. More so, when
the course and events have been specifically dealt with by
WP (C) NO. 9051 OF 2010
3
the authorities who passed Exhibit P1 and P2. The only
question to be considered is whether the order imposing the
condition has been passed in quite a mechanical or stereo
typed manner. Going by Exhibit P7 it is very much
discernible that the third respondent/appellate authority
has referred to the actual facts and circumstances revealed
from the materials on record. It is also observed therein
that, on going through the grounds of appeal, prima facie it
appeared that the appellant had no proper explanation for
the stock variation. It is after considering the relevant
aspects as above, that the condition was imposed, directing
the petitioner to satisfy 50% of the disputed liability. This
being the position, it cannot be said that Exhibit P7 interim
order passed by the third respondent is not a ‘speaking one’
or that it is without proper application of mind. The
challenge raised by the petitioner is not sustainable. The
writ petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly.
WP (C) NO. 9051 OF 2010
4
However, taking of the fact that the time stipulated in
Exhibit P7 to satisfy the condition stands already expired,
the petitioner is granted a further period of two weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, so as to
satisfy the condition and avail the benefit of interim stay
during the pendency of the appeal.
Sd/-
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
True copy
PA to Judge
rkc