Correctness and sustainability of Exts.P10 and P10(a) orders passed by the 1st respondent for the assessment years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 respectively on 09.10.2014, directing the petitioner to satisfy 30% of the disputed liability, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during pendency of the revision petitions, made the petitioner to approach this Court by way of this writ petition.
2. Sequence of events narrated in the writ petition shows that, the petitioner was served with Exts.P1/P1(a) show cause notices on 10.01.2014. The petitioner admittedly filed Exts.P3 and P3(a) reply only on 19.05.2014, as borne by Ext.P2 acknowledgement. The fact remains that, by this time, the proceedings were finalised by the concerned respondent by passing Exts.P4/P4(a) orders on 17.05.2014. After filing Exts.P6/P6(a) petitions for rectification, the petitioner sought it better to pursue the remedy by way of revision, vide Exts.P8/ P8(a) along with Exts.P9/P9(a) Interlocutory Applications for W.P.(C) No.29328 of 2014 2 stay. It was after considering the petitions for stay, that the Appellate Authority passed Exts.P10/P10(a) orders, directing the petitioner to satisfy a portion of the liability as aforesaid, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who points out that the petitioner did not make use of the opportunity given to him. Several incriminating circumstances were collected, pursuant to the shop inspection by the 1st respondent. After collecting such materials, the petitioner was served with a notice, upon which, the petitioner requested for serving copies of the documents. All the said documents were served to the petitioner on 25.04.2014 and the dealer was directed to file objections, if any, to the penalty proposal within 15 days. The notice was served to the petitioner on 25.04.2014 against proper acknowledgement; but he failed to turn up by submitting any reply on or before finalisation of the proceedings as per Exts.P4/P4(a) orders passed on 17.05.2014. The factual sequence in this regard has been clearly narrated by the 1st W.P.(C) No.29328 of 2014 3 respondent in Exts.P4/P4(a) orders.
4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the disputed question of fact, if any, could be brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority in the appeal proceedings. The condition imposed by the Appellate Authority to satisfy a portion of the liability, in view of the admitted failure on the part of the petitioner to produce the relevant documents, despite granting sufficient time, is not liable to be turned to as arbitrary or illegal in any manner.
In the said circumstances, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed. However, considering the extent of liability mulcted upon the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to satisfy 15% of the disputed liability within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and the remaining 15% to top up the figure as mentioned in Exts.P10/P10(a) shall be effected within a further period of two weeks.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp