IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33625 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- RAJAN MATHEW, S/O.GEEVARGHESE MATHAI, AGED 54 YEARS,PROPRIETOR, KOTTACKAL TIMBERS, ADOOR-691 523. BY DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PATHANAMTHITTA. 689 645. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM.691 001. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.33625 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- The petitioner was imposed with penalty to the tune of Rs.19,30,940/-, Rs.10,115/- and Rs.36,735/-, respectively for the years 2009-'10, 2006-'07 and 2007-'08, on the allegation of non-maintenance of true, correct and complete accounts, which were unearthed through an inspection conducted at the place of business of the petitioner on 22.6.2009 and on 25.6.2009. Aggrieved by the penalty imposed for the year 2009-'10 the petitioner had preferred statutory appeal before the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P2. Ext.P3 is the stay petition filed along with the appeal. The 2nd respondent had issued an interim order as per Ext.P4 granting stay of recovery of the penalty amount subject to condition of the petitioner paying 50% within a period of two weeks and on furnishing security for the balance amount, to the satisfaction of the Intelligence Officer. Ext.P4 interim order issued by the 2nd respondent is W.P.(C).33625/10-C -2- challenged on the ground that the condition for payment of 50% imposed is highly unsustainable and unjustifiable. 2. According to the petitioner the 2nd respondent had issued the interim order in an illegal and unsustainable manner as it is totally non-speaking and the same was issued in a mechanical manner, without proper application of mind. It is contended that the impugned order is lacking from any reasoning and the condition imposed is highly rigorous and causing onerous liability on the petitioner. According to the petitioner he is hopeful and getting considerable relief in the appeal and if he is insisted for making payment of 50% of the amount of penalty, the same will cause severe prejudices and will defeat the object of the appeal. 3. On a perusal of Ext.P4 order it is evident that the 2nd respondent had illustrated all the main grounds raised in the appeal and narrated the arguments advanced before him. But the order does not reflect any consideration of the merits of such ground. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent had observed in a highly cryptic manner that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for granting conditional stay and ordered for payment of 50% of the penalty imposed. W.P.(C).33625/10-C -3- 4. It is settled law by this time through various precedents that the statutory appellate authorities are bound to consider merits of the grounds raised in the appeal for deciding the question regarding granting of interim relief. It is held in various decisions that the exercise of discretion with respect to granting interim reliefs shall be done with proper application of mind with due advertence to the contentions raised. It is obligatory on the part of such authorities to mention proper reasonings upon which the interim reliefs are granted or declined. In a recent decision of a Division Bench of this court in Supreme Electrical Engg. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (2008 (3) KLT 805) it is held that the interim orders issued by the appellate authority should reflect proper reasoning as to why condition for payment of part of the amount was insisted upon or in other words as to why the appellant is not entitled for a full stay pending disposal of the appeal. 5. As stated above, the impugned order in the present case is totally lacking from any reasoning, nor it reflects any application of mind. Hence I have no hesitation to hold that the said order is unsustainable in the eye of law. However, considering the fact that the appeal itself is pending disposal W.P.(C).33625/10-C -4- before the 2nd respondent, I am of the view that interest of justice will be served if the 2nd respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal and to restrain the recovery steps till then by imposing a less rigorous condition considering the merits of the contentions raised. 6. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 7. Ext.P4 is modified to the extent of granting stay till the disposal of the appeal, subject to condition of the petitioner paying 1/4th of the amount of penalty imposed and on furnishing Security Bond, without sureties, for the balance amount within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 8. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for proper compliance. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb