IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29070 of 2008(I)
1. SRI. SHANAVAS M.S., RAIHANATH NIVAS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB)
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS),
3. THE TAHSILDAR (RR)
4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
5. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :30/09/2008
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 29070 OF 2008 I
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Writ petition has been taken up for final hearing by
the consent of the parties. I heard learned counsel for
petitioner and learned Government Pleader.
2. Petitioner has pressed before me two complaints.
Firstly, he points out that aggrieved by the order passed
imposing penalty under section 67(1) of the KVAT Act,
petitioner preferred appeal and also filed application seeking
stay. Ext.P6 order came to be passed granting stay on
condition that the petitioner pays 50% of the penalty and
furnishes adequate security for the balance amount. He
further points out that Ext.P6 is passed mechanically against
the dictum of the Division Bench of this Court reported in
Supreme Electrical Enginerring (P) Ltd. Vs. Commercial
Tax Officer [2008 (3) KLT 805]. I feel that Ext.P6 cannot be
sustained and accordingly, Ext.P6 is quashed and the 2nd
WPC.29070/08
: 2 :
respondent will take up the application for stay and pass fresh
orders in accordance with law, within three weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such orders are
passed, recovery steps will be kept in abeyance. Petitioner
will produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent
as soon as it is received.
3. The further complaint of the petitioner is that
though the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 petition seeking to
get the delay condoned in filing the application for
compounding before the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent
has not passed any order thereon so far. Without expressing
any view on the merits or the maintainability of the petition,
there will be a further direction to the 4th respondent to
consider and take a decision on Ext.P4 in accordance with
law, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)
aks