M/S.Igloo Ayurvedic Resort vs Intelligence Officer on 27 May, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 14431 of 2009(Y)


1. M/S.IGLOO AYURVEDIC RESORT,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),

3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SOJAN JAMES

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :27/05/2009

 O R D E R
                  P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
              ........................................................................
                   W.P.(C) No. 14431 OF 2009
              .........................................................................
                        Dated this the 27th May, 2009


                                  J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved of the penalty imposed by the

departmental authorities vide Ext.P1 order with respect to the

assessment year 2007-08, pursuant to the inspection and

verification of the records conducted by the Intelligence wing of

the Commercial Taxes, Squad No.III, Idukki. Challenging Ext.P1

order imposing the penalty, the petitioner has already

approached the second respondent by filing Ext. P2 appeal along

with Ext. P3 stay petition . The grievance of the petitioner is that

the appellate authority though has granted a stay as borne by

Ext. P4, a condition has been imposed directing the petitioner to

remit a sum of Rs.75,000/-, which according to the petitioner is

not sustainable, as the tax liability on the basis of the admitted

turnover to the extent it exceeds the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs

will only come to a sum of Rs. 20,832/- and as such, the penalty

W.P.(C) No. 14431 OF 2009

2

would never exceed Rs. 41,664/- under any circumstances.

2. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is directed to

deposit the said admitted extent of Rs.41,664/- within a period

of one month. On such an event, the second respondent shall

consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P2 appeal, as

expeditiously as possible. Till final orders are passed in the

appeal as aforesaid, all further coercive steps taken against the

petitioner will be kept in abeyance.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

lk