IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 34576 of 2006(N)
1. V.MANIKANDAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ADDL. SALES TAX OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
4. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.MURALIDHARAN (AROOR)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
Dated :01/01/2007
O R D E R
P.R.RAMAN, J.
```````````````````````````
W.P.(C) NO. 34576 OF 2006
```````````````````````````
Dated this the 1st day of January, 2007
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner challenges Exhibit P8 order passed by the 2nd
respondent, Deputy Commissioner, Appeals granting stay of
collection of the balance amount disputed in the appeal on
condition to pay 50% of the amount. According to the petitioner
he has also produced the assessment orders from the dealer from
which he has purchased audio cassettes evidencing the fact that
he has paid tax and therefore he is not liable to pay the tax.
However, admittedly this order was not produced before the
assessing officer and therefore it is a matter for the appellate
authority to consider. Being prima facie satisfied, the appellate
authority has granted stay on condition to remit 50%. At this
stage, it cannot be said that the order passed by the appellate
authority imposing a condition to pay 50% of the tax is in any way
arbitrary or mechanical way requiring interference by this court.
However, the time for payment is extended by two weeks. In the
case of penalty by Exhibit P9 order, the 3rd respondent has
directed the petitioner to pay 50% of the amount as a condition of
WPC 34576/2006
: 2 :
stay of the balance collection.
2. In the light of the discussions as made above, in case
ultimately the assessment order is liable to be set aside possibly
there may not be any question of imposition of penalty.
Considering the factual situation, I feel that the interim order
requiring the petitioner to pay 50% of the penalty has been
passed in a mechanical way without application of mind. Exhibit
P9 order is liable to be set aside and the matter requires to be
reconsidered.
3. Considering the fact that the amount involved is only
less than Rs.70,000/- I direct that until the disposal of the revision
petition by the 3rd respondent, there will be an interim stay of
collection of the penalty amount as imposed on him. Exhibit P9
order accordingly will stand modified as above. However since he
has availed time for payment of 50% of the amount it is
extended by two weeks from today.
Writ petition is allowed to the limited extent as above.
P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE
Rp