Petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the course and proceedings pursued by the concerned respondent in finalising the proceedings, imposing penalty to the tune of Rs.3,00,880/- for the assessment year 2010-11 and also finalising the assessment based on the facts and figures, which were relied on for mulcting the penalty. The petitioner is a licensee under the KMMC Rules, 1967 and in connection with the transactions, the competent authority passed an order imposing the penalty as aforesaid, which is sought to be challenged by approaching the second respondent/Deputy Commissioner(Appeals), Pathanamthitta. After considering the same, Ext.P3 order was passed on 27.06.2014. This is sought to be challenged by way of Revision before the first respondent . In view of coercive steps, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.18126 of 2014 which was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move the statutory authority for stay, giving appropriate directions. It was accordingly that the matter was considered and Ext.P16 order dated 13.08.2014 came to be passed by the W.P.(C)No.21990 OF 2014 2 first respondent/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes ( produced along with I.A.No.11781 of 2014) observing that the petitioner has already remitted a sum of Rs.1,09,520/-, out of the total disputed penalty of Rs.3,00,880/- at the first appellate stage and in turn granting interim stay for one month, directing the petitioner to produce proof of utilization /surrender of 'P' Forms, bearing Sl.No.201 to 360 issued by the Mining and Geology Department within one month's time. It is stated that the petitioner has produced the relevant documents and interim stay has been extended.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the assessment came to be finalised by passing Ext.P12 order dated 28.02.2013 by the fifth respondent/Commercial Tax Officer, which is mainly on the basis of the contents of the order imposing penalty. The petitioner has taken up the matter by way of appeal before the third respondent/Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)/Kollam. It is stated that after considering I.A. for stay in terms of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.15634 of 2013, Ext.P17 order dated 17.07.2013 came to be passed (produced along with I.A.No.13611 of 2014 ) granting interim stay, subject to satisfaction of 35% of balance tax within W.P.(C)No.21990 OF 2014 3 three weeks. Admittedly, the petitioner has not satisfied the condition and appeal is pending.
3. The case projected by the petitioner is that since all the relevant documents have already been produced particularly in the light of direction contained in Ext.P16 order, if the Revision Petition is finalised within a reasonable time it will vindicate the stand of the petitioner.
4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances, there will be a direction to the first respondent/ Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, to consider and pass final orders on the Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner, wherein Ext.P16 interim order was passed on 13.08.2014. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition and I.As (referred to above) before the first respondent/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for further steps.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the condition imposed as per Ext.P17 was not satisfied , earnestly under the belief that the proceedings will be finalised without W.P.(C)No.21990 OF 2014 4 any delay and that the petitioner was expecting favourable orders from the revisional authority/third respondent. It is also pointed out that the petitioner is ready and willing to satisfy the said condition, for which short time is sought for.
7. The learned Government Pleader points out that if the petitioner proves his bonafides by effecting deposit within 'ten days', the matter can be considered and disposed of accordingly.
8. In the said circumstances, this Court finds it fit and proper to grant one more chance to the petitioner to satisfy the condition imposed vide Ext.P17. The petitioner shall continue to enjoy the benefit of interim stay, if the petitioner complies with the condition, within 'ten' days from today. If the condition is satisfied, as above, the appeal in respect of 'assessment' shall be finalised only after finalisation of the revision petition by the first respondent/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, as mentioned hereinbefore.
Writ petition is disposed of.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk