C.YOUSAPH Vs. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PENALTY was levied on the petitioner for the years 2009- 2010 and 2010-2011. In the appeals filed the penalty orders were set aside by Ext.P1 order and the matter was remitted to the Intelligence Officer for fresh consideration. Accordingly, Ext.P3 series of orders were passed, levying penalty on the petitioner for the years 2008-09, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. Against these orders petitioner filed Exts.P4, P5 and P6 appeals. Along with the appeals stay petitions were also filed. Stay petitions were considered and Ext.P7 order has been passed granting stay on condition that the petitioner will remit Rs.25 lakhs and furnish security for the balance. It is challenging Ext.P7 order that the writ petition is filed.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that Ext.P3 series of orders are vitiated for various reasons and are liable to be set aside due to the illegalities pointed out in the appeal memorandum. It is contended that it was without considering those contentions that the appellate authority has passed Ext.P7 order.

(3.) IN so far as the contention of the petitioner that Ext.P3 orders are vitiated for the illegalities mentioned in the appeal memorandum and that it was without considering those illegalities that the condition has been imposed by the appellate authority is concerned, I must say that the question of considering the illegalities pointed out by the petitioner arises at the time when appeals are finally heard and decided. On the other hand, when the stay petitions are considered, the appellate authority need only consider whether the appellant has made out a prima facie case justifying for an interim order of stay.