M/S.Puthenveettil … vs Intelligence Officer(In-Charge … on 18 March, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 9044 of 2010(E)


1. M/S.PUTHENVEETTIL CONSTRUCTIONS,CHEPPAD
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER(IN-CHARGE OF IB)
                       ...       Respondent

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS),

3. INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON

                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. 9044 OF 2010
                  ...............................................
          Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010

                              J U D G M E N T

The first respondent has imposed a penalty upon the

petitioner as per Exhibit P3 Order, aggrieved of which the

petitioner has filed Exhibit P4 Appeal before the 2nd

respondent, along with an interlocutory application for

stay.

2. After considering the IA for stay, the 2nd

respondent passed Exhibit P5 order, whereby the

petitioner has been directed to satisfy 1/3 of the penalty

amount within 2 weeks, however without mentioning any

reason for imposing the condition, despite the fact that

the petitioner had brought a prima facie case as observed

in Exhibit P5 itself.

3. Heard the Government Pleader as well.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,

WP (C) NO. 9044 OF 2010
2

there is absolutely no question of any evasion or

suppression and that the entire turn over has been reflected

in the return and that the only mistake committed was in

respect of the name shown. Eventhough this aspect was

highlighted before the Appellate Authority, while passing

Exhibit P5 interim order, liability to satisfy 1/3rd of the

amount in dispute was mulcted upon the shoulders of the

petitioner which hence is under challenge in this writ

petition.

5. After taking note of the specific contentions raised

in the Writ Petition and also observing that Exhibit P5 is not

a speaking order, at all, this Court finds that the Appellate

Authority could be directed to consider and pass

appropriate orders on Exhibit P4 appeal. Accordingly, the

second respondent is directed to consider Exhibit P4 appeal

in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible at

WP (C) NO. 9044 OF 2010
3

any rate within a period of one month from the date of

receipt of a copy of this Judgment. It is also made clear that

till such final orders are passed on Exhibit P4 appeal, all

further coercive steps shall be kept in abeyance

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

rkc