IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34848 of 2010(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.KUNHALASSAN, KUNHIPPA CHICKEN STALL, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SMT.K.HYMAVATHY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (KVAT), SPECIAL CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MALAPPURAM-676505. 2. KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM (CAMP SITTING AT PALAKKAD) 678004. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MALAPPURAM AT MANJERI-676121. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMNT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.34848 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P9 and P10 orders passed by the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, in Intp.No.54/10 in T.A.(VAT) No.485/10 and in Intp.No.55/10 in T.A.(VAT) No.486/10. Through the impugned orders, the Tribunal had granted conditional stay insisting on the petitioner for payment of half of the disputed tax amount and on furnishing Security Bond for the balance amount. 2. According to the petitioner, the impugned orders are totally non speaking and issued in a mechanical manner without application of mind. It is contended that the Tribunal had not adverted to any of the grounds raised in the appeals nor the Tribunal had considered the prima facie the sustainability of such grounds. 3. On a perusal of the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal, I am of the view that the said orders do not reflect consideration of the required factors which need be taken note of by the statutory appellate authority while passing interim orders. It is settled law by a catena of decisions of this court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court that, the appellate W.P.(C).34848/10-E -2- authorities, while disposing interlocutory applications, shall advert to sustainability of the grounds raised in the appeal. They are bound to pass speaking orders enumerating such grounds and also enumerating prima facie reasoning as to why such grounds are not acceptable. In a recent decision of this court in Supreme Electrical Engg. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (2008 (3) KLT 805) it is held by a Division Bench of this court that, the appellate authorities should express prima facie decision regarding sustainability of the grounds raised and should also express the opinion as to why the petitioner is not entitled for an absolute stay. In the said decision it is mentioned that the appellate authorities should impose conditions with proper reasonings and the orders should reveal as to why the authority is insisting upon payment of a part of the amount due. 4. Ext.P9 and P10 orders do not reflect any proper application of mind or advertence to any of the grounds raised in the appeals. There is no reasoning mentioned in the interim orders as to why the petitioner is entitled only for a conditional stay. Under such circumstances I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P9 and P10 orders are not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Accordingly Ext.P9 and P10 are hereby quashed. The 2nd respondent Tribunal is directed to pass fresh orders on the stay petitions or on the statutory appeals at the earliest possible, W.P.(C).34848/10-E -3- at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. Needless to say that recovery of amounts in dispute shall be kept in abeyance till orders are passed by the Tribunal as directed above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb