IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5086 of 2011(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- S.GIRISH, PROPRIETOR, M/S.RAMCO HOME APPLIANCES, HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.FIROZ.K.M. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, HARIPAD – 688 511. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM – 696 001. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.5086 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Ext.P4 interim stay order passed by the 2nd respondent appellate authority is under challenge in this writ petition. Assessment was completed against the petitioner for the year 2008-09 by virtue of Ext.P1 order. Ext.P2 and P3 are the appeal as well as stay petition filed against Ext.P1 before the 2nd respondent. In the impugned order the appellate authority had granted interim stay subject to condition of the petitioner making payment of 40% of the balance amount and also on furnishing adequate security for the balance 60%. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the insistence for payment of 40% of the amount was made in a mechanical manner, without mentioning any reason. While granting the interim relief the appellate authority had failed in considering any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. None of the grounds raised in the appeal were adverted to or considered and the appellate authority had totally failed in making any observations regarding the merits of such contentions. Hence the impugned order is totally unsustainable in the eye of law, is the contentions. W.P.(C).5086/11 -2- 3. On a perusal of Ext.P4 it is evident that the appellate authority had illustrated the main contentions raised by the petitioner. But without considering the merits of such contentions the appellate authority had observed that “He had made out a prima facie case for conditional stay. In that circumstances the following stay orders are issued.” It is evident that without mentioning anything about the merits of the contentions and without mentioning any reason for imposing such a condition the authority had insisted for payment of 40% of the tax amount. It is settled law by this time that the appellate authorities, exercising quasi judicial functions, while granting interim reliefs are expected to issue reasoned orders after adverting to the contentions and expressing prima facie opinion about merits of such contentions. On a perusal of the impugned interim order, it is evident that a cryptic order was issued in a manner without proper application of mind. Hence I am of the considered opinion that the order impugned is sustainable in the eye of law. 4. In the result the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P4 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent for passing fresh orders after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Needless to say that the petitioner will be permitted to produce documents and other W.P.(C).5086/11 -3- evidence in support of his contentions. 5. Fresh orders in this regard shall be issued as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. Till then recovery of amounts covered under Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb