IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1047 of 2010(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S. RAMACHANDRAN GARMENTS, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY J. SARAVANACHANDRAN, PROPRIETOR. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SUQAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 1047 & 1048 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 13th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners in both these cases are mainly aggrieved of Ext.P5 and P6 interim orders, passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby interim stay has been granted in respect of the orders imposing the penalty upon the petitioners subject to the condition that, 50% of the same is satisfied and adequate security is furnished in respect of the balance amount. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is total non-application of mind on the part of the Appellate Authority in passing the impugned orders, in so far as the relative merits and demerits have not been discussed at all before arriving at the conclusion and that, it is not a speaking order as well. 3. The learned Government Pleader submits, with specific reference to the contents of impugned orders, that the case exposed by the petitioner/appellant as well as the case put forth from the part of the Revenue have been specifically referred to in the impugned orders and that the condition imposed is not assailable under any circumstance. 4. Coming to the contents of the impugned orders, it is seen that after discussing the case put forth from either side, the only reasoning given WP(C) No.1047 & 1048/2010 2 by the Appellate Authority is that, it will take 'considerable time' to consider the merits of the case involved. In Ext.P6 impugned in WP(C) 1048/2010, it is stated that, there is substance in the contentions raised by both the sides and that the interim order was being passed directing the petitioner/appellant to satisfy 50% of the liability as a measure of taking a 'lenient' view. The observation as contained in Ext.P5 in the connected case that there was prima facie case of suspected evasion of tax is conspicuously absent in Ext.P6 order in WP(C) 1048/2010. It appears that, but for referring to the rival contentions, the Appellate Authority has passed the impugned orders imposing the condition while granting the stay, as a matter of course and not based on any reliable material. 5. In the above circumstances, taking note of the contents of the Writ Petition and also after hearing the submissions made by either side, this Court finds it fit and proper to vary the impugned orders to the extent that the liability cast upon the petitioner to satisfy 50% of the disputed amount will stand reduced at an extent of 1/3 of the actual liability which shall be deposited by the petitioner within a period of two weeks, on which event, the petitioner will be entitled to enjoy the fruits of interim stay passed by the Appellate Authority vide Exts.P5 and P6. The said orders varied and modified only to the above extent. The Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc