The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the condition imposed by the first respondent vide Ext. P4 order dated 30.10.2014 so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during pendency of appeal.
2. The sequence of events as narrated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was mulcted with penalty as per Ext. P1 order for the assessment year 2009 - '10, being aggrieved of which, the petitioner preferred Ext. P2 appeal, along with Ext. P3 petition for stay. It was after considering the same, that the interim order came to be passed, directing the petitioner to satisfy 30 % of the disputed liability, to avail the benefit of interim stay, which in turn is under challenge .
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings pursued by the second respondent are per se wrong and illegal in all respects and that there is absolutely no room for imposing penalty, in view of the nature of transaction. The learned counsel further submits that the proceedings pursued by the second W.P.(C) No. 31208 of 2014 : 2 :
respondent are based on the wrong and misconceived facts, as to the course and events and that the petitioner has already given particulars of the transactions, involving Form 8H, with regard to the dealers from whom the materials were purchased as per Ext.P5.
4. The learned Government Pleader points out that sufficient opportunity was given to produce the documents and that admittedly, the petitioner did not produce Form 8 H to support the case projected before the assessing authority. It is pointed out that the petitioner neither produced the relevant documents before the appellate authority, when the stay petition has considered, nor did he produce it before this Court along with the present writ petition.
5. After hearing both the sides and after considering the nature and extent of relief sought for, this Court finds that the condition imposed by the appellate authority vide Ext. P4 cannot be termed as arbitrary or illegal in any manner. The scope of the said order has to be analysed with reference to the order passed by the assessing authority. However, considering the extent amount involved and the nature of contentions raised, the condition W.P.(C) No. 31208 of 2014 : 3 :
imposed by the appellate authority vide Ext. P4 order is scaled down to 20 %, instead of 30 %. Ext. P4 order is modified to the said extent. Considering the fact that the time to satisfy the condition is over, the petitioner is granted a further period of 'two weeks' to comply with the condition as aforesaid.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for further steps.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
kmd Sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)