IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2011 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 10588 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER ----------------- K.J.JOSE, JOSCO AUTOMOBILES AGED 40 YEARS,VI/3060, PANANGAD, KOCHI 682 506. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) O/O.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM 682030. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KVAT, CIRCLE -11, TRIPPUNITHURA 682301. 3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER REVENUE RECOVERY, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM 682030. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10588 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Ext.P4 interlocutory order passed by the 1st respondent granting stay against recovery of amounts covered under Ext.P2 order of assessment, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner had filed statutory appeal before the 1st respondent challenging Ext.P2, as evidenced from Ext.P3, accompanied by an interlocutory application seeking stay as per Ext.P4. The 1st respondent had disposed of the stay petition granting interim stay, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting 50% of the amount and on furnishing security bond for the balance. 2. Petitioner is challenging the condition imposed through Ext.P4 order, contending that such a condition was imposed in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind. It is also contended that the condition imposed is highly rigorous in nature and causes onerous liability on the petitioner for compliance. It is the contention that the assessment is completed in an unreasonable and arbitrary manner and that there is every chance of the appellate authority granting considerable relief. Therefore the petitioner seeks direction for W.P.(C).10588/11 -2- disposal of the appeal on an early basis and till then to restrain recovery steps. 3. On a perusal of Ext.P4 it is evident that the appellate authority had observed that the contentions raised were considered by verifying the connected records. It is further observed that detailed verification of the connected records is necessary at the time of final hearing of the appeal. But finding that the petitioner could establish a prima facie case, a conditional stay was granted. 4. It is trite law by this time that, the statutory appellate authorities should write reasoned orders while granting interim reliefs. The orders should reflect illustration of the main contentions and its consideration on merits, on a prima facie basis. In the impugned order the 1st respondent had failed to illustrate any of such contentions nor any consideration of merits of such contentions is reflected. Even after observing that a prima facie case has been established, the condition for payment of 50% was seen imposed without mentioning any particular reason. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that Ext.P4 order will not stand the test of sustainability under law, and the same is liable to be quashed. 5. It is noticed that, at the time when the writ petition came up for consideration, this court had granted an interim stay W.P.(C).10588/11 -3- subject to condition of the petitioner remitting 25% of the total amounts due under the impugned assessment. It is reported that the condition stipulated has already been complied with. Under such circumstances I am of the view that interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the appellate authority to have an early disposal of the appeal and till then to restrain recovery steps. 6. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 appeal 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 appeal is disposed of as directed above, the respondents are directed to keep in abeyance all further recovery steps for realising amounts covered under Ext.P2, provided the petitioner had remitted 25% of the amount as stipulated in the interim order of this court dt. 6.4.2011, and further subject to condition of the petitioner furnishing security bond for the balance amount within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb