IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22039 of 2010(D) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. M/S.SUNNY JACOB 916 JEWELLERY, POWER HOUSE ROAD, PAZHAVANGADI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING PARTNER, SUNNY JACOB. 2. MAGGY SUNNY, PROPRIETRESS, M/S.SUNNY JACOB 916 KERALA SHOW ROOM, M.G.ROAD, PAZHAVANGADI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.THANU PILLAI, SRI.K.P.JOY. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, FIRST CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEAL), COMMERCIAL TAXES , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.22039 of 2010-D ---------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are aggrieved of the condition imposed in Ext.P10 and P11 orders passed by the appellate authority, directing the petitioners to satisfy 50% of the liability so as to avail the benefit of the interim stay, during the pendency of the appeal. 2. The case of the petitioners is that in spite of raising many a ground in the memorandum of appeal, the same has not been discussed in the impugned orders, which made the petitioners to approach this Court for necessary intervention. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that, Exts.P10 and P11 are exhaustive orders and all the contentions raised by the petitioners have been referred to therein. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, eventhough the contentions raised by the petitioner have been referred to, there is absolutely no discussion whatsoever, but for the observation made in the penultimate para that, the appellate W.P(C) No.22039 of 2010-D 2 authority has gone through the arguments and found that the final decision could be arrived of only after thorough analysis of the case. However, while intercepting the coercive steps, imposing a condition that 50% of the due amount is satisfied, no reasoning or explanation is given, before fixing the quantum. 5. Going by the materials on record, the fact remains that, various contentions have been raised by the petitioner, also referring to the question of law and binding judicial precedents. Though the contentions raised by the petitioner have been referred to by the appellate authority, they have not been discussed, to sustain the extent of the condition imposed upon the petitioner, for availing the benefit of interim stay. This Court finds it very difficult to accept the reasoning of the appellate authority; more so, since the interim order has necessarily to be a 'speaking order', in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Ravi Gupta V. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi & another (2009) 22 VST 529 (SC) . 6. Taking note of the fact that the appeals have been filed in November 2009 and further since, even according to the appellate authority a concrete decision can be taken only on finalisation of the appeal (as observed in Exts.P10 and P11), the W.P(C) No.22039 of 2010-D 3 second respondent is directed to consider and pass final orders on Exts.P6 and P8 appeals, in accordance with law, of course after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, no recovery proceedings shall be pursued against the petitioner till such final orders are passed, on condition that the petitioner satisfies 25% of the tax amount and furnishes security for the balance amount within two weeks. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab