IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2011 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6578 of 2011(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.R. BABU, SOUTH INDIAN TIMBERS, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON, SMT.MEERA V.MENON, SRI.MAHESH V.MENON. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, MAVELIKKARA-695 101. 2. ASST. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM-691 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 6578 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Exts.P3, P3(a) and P3(b) interim orders issued by the 2nd respondent appellate authority, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner preferred statutory appeals before the 2nd respondent against Ext.P1 series orders of assessment finalised under the provisions of the KVAT Act, with respect to the years 2005-06 to 2007-08. Along with the appeals, interlocutory applications seeking stay were filed. Ext.P3 series orders impugned in this writ petition are issued by the 2nd respondent while disposing the stay petitions. 2. Through Ext.P3 series interim orders the appellate authority had insisted the petitioner to make payment of 50% of the balance tax due and to furnish adequate security for the remaining amount. According to the petitioner, the condition was imposed in a quite mechanical manner without adverting to the grounds raised in the appeal memorandum and also without properly considering the merits of any of the contentions raised. Therefore the condition imposed is highly unreasonable and WP(C) .6578/2011 2 arbitrary, is the contention. Petitioner further submits that considering the financial stringency now experienced by the petitioner the condition imposed is becoming unworkable. 3. On a perusal of the impugned orders it is discernible that an opportunity of hearing was afforded while disposing the stay petitions. Eventhough the 2nd respondent had illustrated the main contention raised, the orders does not reflect any consideration of the merits of such contentions. Nothing is discernible from the order to the effect that whether those contentions were properly adverted to and whether the appellate authority had confirmed any opinion regarding merits of such contention. 4. It is trite law by this time that the appellate authorities are exercising quasi judicial functions and they are expected to write the reasoning for granting interim relief. The impugned orders are highly cryptic and non speaking with respect to consideration of the contentions. Therefore I am of the view that the orders in questions are not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is allowed and Exts.P3,P3(a) and P3(b) are quashed. The 2nd WP(C) .6578/2011 3 respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh and to pass speaking orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Fresh orders in this regard shall be passed as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. Till such time fresh orders are issued recovery of amounts covered under the assessments impugned in the appeal shall be kept in abeyance. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .6578/2011 4