The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext. P10 order passed by the third respondent requiring the petitioner to satisfy 30 % of the disputed liability so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during pendency of appeal.
2. Challenging Ext. P2 penalty order passed by the first respondent, though the petitioner preferred revision before the 4th respondent, the second respondent initiated and finalized the assessment proceedings based on Ext. P2 vide Ext. P5. Aggrieved of Ext. P5 assessment order, the petitioner has preferred Ext. P6 appeal along with interlocutory application for stay. In the meanwhile, the 4th respondent finalized the revision upholding the findings in the penalty order, however reducing the quantum of penalty, as borne by Ext. P7. The petitioner sought to challenge Ext. P7 by way of second revision before the 4th respondent vide Ext. P8. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the condition imposed by the 3rd respondent as per Ext. P10 order , so as to avail W.P.(C) No. 31435 of 2014 : 2 :
the benefit of interim stay during pendency of Ext. P6 appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though various contentions have been raised by the petitioner, the appellate authority without proper application of mind passed Ext. P10 order, which is contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court in Ravi Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax [(2009) 22 VST 529].
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that the assessment was finalized on the basis of the crime registered against the petitioner and that the condition imposed is only 30 % and as such, it cannot be termed as onerous.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances and on going through the materials on record, this Court finds it fit and proper to scale down the extent of liability to be satisfied by the petitioner, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during pendency of appeal, from 30 % to 20 %. Ext.P10 order is modified to the above extent.
Since the time stipulated in Ext. P10 order is already over, the petitioner is granted 'two' more weeks' time to satisfy the condition as above. The fourth respondent is directed to finalize Ext. P8 revision petition in accordance with law, as expeditiously as W.P.(C) No. 31435 of 2014 : 3 :
possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
kmd Sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)