IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13643 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAMAVARMA CLUB,CLUB ROAD,KOCHI 682 011, A CLUB REGISTERED UNDER THE TRAVANCORER,COCHIN LITERARY SCIENTIFIC AND CHARITABLE,SOCIETY'S REGISTRATION EVENT, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY SRI.S.GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,KVAT-1V,IV CIRCLE ERNAKULAM 682 015. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM 682 015. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), OFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM 682 015. 4. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (RECOVERY),OFFICE OF INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM 682 015. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13643 of 2011(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD.27.4.2011 IN THE STAY PETITION IN KVATA 588/11 EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD.27.4.2011 IN THE STAY PETITION IN KVATA 589/11 EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD.27.4.2011 IN THE STAY PETITION IN KVATA 591/11 EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE KVAT ACT DTD.28.9.2010 FOR 2005-06 EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE KVAT ACT DTD.28.9.2010 FOR 2006-07 EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE KVAT ACT DTD.28.9.2010 FOR 2009-10 EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P4 DTD.19.10.2010 EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P5 DTD.19.10.2010 EXT.P9 : COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P6 DTD.19.10.2010 EXT.P10 : COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD.21.12.2010 FOR 2005-06 EXT.P11 : COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD.21.12.2010 FOR 2006-07 EXT.P12 : COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD.21.12.2010 FOR 2009-10 EXT.P13: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.16.2.2011 AGAINST EXT.10 EXT.P14: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.16.2.2011 AGAINST EXT.11 EXT.P15: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.16.2.2011 AGAINST EXT.12 EXT.P16: COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION SUBMITTED IN EXT.P13 DTD.16.2.2011 AGAINST EXT.P10 WP(C).No. 13643 of 2011(E) EXT.P17: COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION SUBMITTED IN EXT.P14 DTD.16.2.2011 AGAINST EXT.P11 EXT.P18: COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION SUBMITTED IN EXT.P15 DTD.16.2.2011 AGAINST EXT.P12 EXT.P19: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD.1.3.2011 AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT FOR 2005-06 EXT.P20: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD.1.3.2011 AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT FOR 2006-07 EXT.P21: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD.1.3.2011 AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT FOR 2009-10 EXT.P22: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C) NO.7480/2010 DTD.10.3.2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE AB C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.13643 of 2011-E ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1 to P3 orders issued by the 3rd respondent, disposing the interim applications for stay filed along with statutory appeals, which were instituted against assessment orders finalised with respect to the years 2006-06, 2006-07 and 2009-10. One of the contention raised by the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent is not an authority empowered to deal with the appeals in question. It is also contended that the condition imposed through Exts.P1 to P3 orders are highly rigorous and such conditions are imposed in a mechanical manner without application of mind and without proper advertance to the grounds raised in the appeals. 2. Heard; learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. It is pointed out that, by virtue of a notification issued, the 3rd respondent has been conferred W.P(C) No.13643 of 2011-E 2 with powers to deal with the appeals with certain peculiar limits and therefore the contention regarding competence of the 3rd respondent deserves no merit. 3. Considering sustainability of the conditions imposed, it may not be justified on the part of this court to interfere with, since such conditions are imposed in exercise of discretionary powers vested on the appellate authority. However, on a perusal of Exts.P1 to P3, I am not in agreement with the contentions of the petitioner that such orders are issued in a mechanical manner without application of mind. It is evident that the main ground raised in the appeal are illustrated in the order and it is evident that the appellate authority had considered sustainability of such grounds, on a prima facie basis. However, it is evident that the appellate authority has not mentioned any specific reasoning for imposition of conditions, to the extent of 50% in Exts.P1 and P2 and 60% in Ext.P3 order. 4. In a Division Bench decision of this Court in W.P(C) No.13643 of 2011-E 3 Supreme Electrical Engg. (P) Ltd. V. Commercial Tax Officer (2008(3) KLT 805) it was held that the appellate authorities are expected to mention specific reasoning with respect to imposition of conditions and also to mention reasoning as to why the appellants are not entitled for a full stay. Considering the para meters described under the above said decision, I am of the view that imposition of the condition without mentioning any specific reason is unsustainable in the eye of law. 5. When the writ petition came up for admission, recovery steps were stayed insisting upon the petitioner for payment of 25% of the amount due. It is reported that the conditions stipulated had already been complied with. Under such circumstances, ends of justice will be achieved if a direction is issued for an early disposal of the appeal and till then to restrain the recovery steps for realising the balance amount. 6. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of W.P(C) No.13643 of 2011-E 4 Exts.P13, P14 and P15 appeals after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 7. Till such time the appeals are disposed of as directed above, recovery of amounts covered under the impugned assessments (Exts.P10 to P12) shall be kept in abeyance, provided the petitioner had already remitted 25% of the amounts as directed by this Court, and further on the petitioner furnishing Security Bond for the balance amount, without sureties, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab