JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the condition imposed by the Appellate Authority vide Ext.P7, directing the petitioner to satisfy 30% of the penalty imposed upon the petitioner, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during pendency of the proceedings.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, the penalty was proposed to be inflicted upon the petitioner for the first time only as per notice dated 30.09.2011. Much before that the petitioner had sought to revise the return by submitting necessary application on 14.02.2011 and as such, the order is not correct or sustainable.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, the original return was submitted by the petitioner on 25.03.2010 as borne by Ext.P1, followed by Profit and Loss Account and Audit Report, submitted on 05.02.2011. But later, the 1st respondent, allegedly on the basis of some incriminating circumstances, issued notice to impose penalty upon the petitioner on 30.09.2011 as aforesaid and in spite of the objection preferred by the petitioner, the proceedings were finalised mulcting huge penalty as per Ext.P3 order dated 31.12.2013. The observation is that, petitioner had virtual