IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2010 / 14TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20750 of 2010(P) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- T.V.VIPIN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.KAIRALI STOCK SUPPLIERS, PERUMPAIKKAD, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAGHUNATHAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ETTUMANNOOR 686 531. 2. KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOCHI- 682 015. R1 &R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 20750 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenging the assessment made by the assessing authority, though the petitioner had filed an appeal, the same did not turn to be fruitful as borne by Ext.P2; which in turn has been subjected to challenge by filing second appeal before the 2nd respondent as borne by Ext.P3. The petitioner has also filed Ext.P4 petition for stay and after considering the same, the 2nd respondent has passed Ext.P5 order; whereby the petitioner has been directed to satisfy 50% of the disputed liability and to furnish security for the balance amount, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during pendency of the second appeal; which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, Ext.P5 order is not liable to be considered as a 'speaking order' at all, as nothing has been discussed therein, as to the case projected by the petitioner/appellant and as to the rationale in imposing the condition, so as to avail the benefit of stay. The learned counsel also submits that, similar matters had already come up for consideration earlier and after hearing, directions were being given by this Court to have the appeal finalised; directing to satisfy 1/3 of the disputed liability. 2 WP(C) No.20750/2010 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and finalise Ext.P3 appeal in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Coercive proceedings, if any, shall be kept in abeyance till such time, on condition that the petitioner satisfies 1/3 of the disputed amount and furnishes security for the balance within two weeks. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc