Kerala High Court
M/S. Modicare Ltd vs The Intelligence Officer on 4 January, 2017
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic, Dama Seshadri Naidu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/19TH PHALGUNA, 1938
WA.No. 422 of 2017 () IN WP(C).171/2017
-----------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 171/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DATED 04-01-2017
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:
------------------------------
M/S. MODICARE LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, JANATHA ROAD,
VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM , KOCHI 19,
REPRESENTED BY VASANTHA KUMAR,
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON
SMT.MEERA V.MENON
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
-------------------------------------
1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,
SQUAD NO.VIII,COMMERCIAL TAXES,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 015.
2. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
TAX TOWERS, KARAMANA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 015.
4. INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
KAKKANAD, KOCHI 682 030.
R BY SRI. MOHAMMED RAFIQ, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.
-------------------------------------------
W.A. No.422 of 2017
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of March, 2017.
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic,J.
The appellant filed the writ petition challenging Ext.P18 order passed by the revisional authority in a revision filed against the penalty levied on the petitioner for the assessment years 2011-2012 to 2014- 2015, whereby the appellant was required to deposit 25% of the penalty amount as a condition for stay. By the judgment under appeal, the learned single Judge declined to interfere with the order, but extended the time for compliance by two months. It is this judgment which is under challenge before us.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. On a reading of the memorandum of appeal, it would show that the contentions raised by the appellant are on the merits of the matter, which are the issues that are to be considered at the stage when the revision was heard. Moreover, it was on satisfaction of the, prima facie, case made out by the appellant that the conditional order of stay has been passed by the revisional authority. Therefore, we do not think such an order warrants interference on any of the grounds W.A. No.422/2017 -2- raised by the appellant. Therefore, the judgment under appeal is sustained.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Be that as it may, having regard to the pendency of the proceedings, the time for compliance with Ext.P18 is extended by a further period of two weeks from today.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
Rv W.A. No.422/2017 -3-