IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16985 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ASIANET STATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LITD., KARIMPANAL ARCADE, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE (LEGAL) MR. ALEX P. JOSE BY ADV. MR. SAJI VARGHESE MS. MARIAM MATHAI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DUPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 16985 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 19th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Exts.P1 and P2 assessment orders passed by the first respondent, in respect of the assessment years 2005 - '06 and 2006 - '07, were subjected to challenge by filing Exts.P4 and P5 appeal and Exts.P7 and P8 petitions for stay before the second respondent. However, the second respondent, though arrived at a finding that the appellant (petitioner herein) had prima facie made out a case, simply jumped down to the conclusion that the appellant/petitioner had to satisfy 50% of the liability as a condition for availing the benefit of interim stay. It is challenging the above orders passed by the appellate authority, that the petitioner has chosen to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Obviously, Exts.P9 and P10 orders passed by the second respondent do not contain any discussion as to the actual facts and figures. When the concerned appellate authority observes that, the appellant/petitioner has made out a prima facie case, the reason for imposing the condition making the said party to satisfy 50% of the liability for having the benefit of stay, is not discernible from the said orders. This only shows that the second respondent has not applied his mind WP (C) No. 16985 of 2009 : 2 : properly while passing the said orders. That apart, the law is well settled in view of the binding judicial precedents as per the decisions reported in Ravi Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi and another (2009 (22) VST Page 529) and Supreme Electrical Engg. (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner Tax Officer (2008 (3) KLT 805) , whereby it has been held that interim orders should contain the reasons. 4. In the above circumstances, Exts.P9 and P10 orders are set aside. The second respondent is hereby directed to reconsider Exts.P6 and P7 petitions for stay, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that, till fresh orders are passed on Exts.P6 and P7 petitions for stay, all further coercive proceedings pursued against petitioner on the basis Ext.P8 notice issued by the 4th respondent under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd