IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2010 / 12TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24112 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JAMALUDEEN KUNJU B.M.AGENCIES, MEMANA, OCHIRA PO,KOLLAM 690526. BY ADV. MR. P.B.SAHASRANAMAN MR. T.S.HARIKUMAR MR. K.JAGADEESH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM 690518 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEAL) II COMMERCIAL TAX KOLLAM -13 3. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR REVENUE RECOVERY, KARUNAGAPPALLY 690518. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 24112 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 3rd day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext. P5 order passed by the appellate authority, whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit 50 % of the penalty imposed, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay, during the pendency of the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, absolutely no rhyme or reason is stated to sustain the condition while passing the interim order, which hence is sought to be intercepted by this Court. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Going by the materials on record, it is evident that, the case projected by the petitioner has been very much adverted to by the appellate authority in Ext. P5. However, after referring to the grounds raised by the petitioner, there is no discussion as to any reason to sustain the extent of liability now ordered to be satisfied, imposing the condition so as to avail the interim stay. The law is well settled by authoritative pronouncement by the Apex Court in Ravi Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax [(2009) 22 VST 529], that, even in the case of interim order, specific reason has to be given so as to sustain the same. W.P. (C) No. 24112 of 2010 : 2 : 4. In the above circumstances, Ext. P5 cannot have any valid existence and the same is set aside. The second respondent/appellate authority is directed to re-consider Ext. P4 petition for stay, of course after hearing the petitioner and a speaking order shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, till such appropriate orders are passed afresh, all further coercive steps, pursuant to Ext. P6 shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd