IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11968 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LTD., 2A, 2ND FLOOR, LEELA INFOPARK, TECHNOPARK, KAZHAKUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REP.BY ITS EXECUTIVE (LEGAL) MR.ALEX P.JOSE. BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V.K.SHAMSUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------- W.P(C). No. 11968 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is challenging the condition imposed by the second respondent while passing Ext.P12, directing the petitioner to satisfy the liability to the extent as specified therein, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) No.16985 of 2009, when a similar course was pursued by the appellate authority mechanically passing an order directing the petitioner to satisfy 50% of the liability. After considering the matter with reference to the mandate in Ravi Gupta v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi and another (2009 (22) VST 529) and Supreme Electrical Engineering (P) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (2008 (3) KLT 805), the impugned orders were set aside and the second respondent was directed to reconsider the matter and pass a reasoned order. It is pursuant to the said verdict that Ext.P12 has been passed by the said authority, whereby the extent of the condition imposed has been slightly brought down, but without proper application of mind; submits Mr. Saji Varghese, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents seeks to sustain Ext.P12, stating that it is a reasoned order and everything has been discussed therein. On going through the said order, true, the W.P.(C).No.11968/2010 2 appellate authority has referred to the case projected from the part of the petitioner particularly as to the rate of tax applicable. Similarly, reference is also made to the stand of the department. But obviously, 'which version is correct' has not been considered by the authority, while imposing the condition for availing the benefit of interim stay. The observation made by the appellate authority leading to the inference is as follows: “I have gone through the arguments of the learned Advocate of the appellant and a final decision could be arrived only after thorough analysis of the case and disposal of the appeal, which will take much time. In the meantime, taking a lenient view, the following orders are passed..............” 3. It has been made clear on many an occasion by this Court, that 'speaking order' means, it should contain the reasons, so as to arrive at the inference. The dispute obviously is whether there could have been any liability to attract the tax at the rate of 12.5% as pointed out by the department or whether the contention of the petitioner as to the actual rate of tax realisable as 4% is correct/sustainable. This is rather a 'legal question' and absolutely no factual dispute is involved. This being the position, the relevant merits and demerits have not been properly considered or weighed by the appellate authority while passing Ext.P12, so as to sustain the condition imposed. As such, Ext.P12 cannot be considered as a 'speaking order' at all, though the contentions raised from either side have been referred to therein. W.P.(C).No.11968/2010 3 4. Going by the sequence of events, this Court does not find it necessary to direct the second respondent to reconsider the matter, which may protract the matter further. In such circumstance, the second respondent is directed to consider Exts.P4 and P5 appeals on merits and to pass appropriate orders thereon, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time final orders are passed on Exts.P4 and P5, all further coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P8 shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE ) vps W.P.(C).No.11968/2010 4 W.P.(C).No.11968/2010 5