IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 18TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25556 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHAHIDA BEEVI, PROPRIETOR,HOTEL OLIVIA,PRESS ROAD, STATUE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SALES TAX OFFICER (ENQUIRY) LT, OFFICE OF THE DY.COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DY.COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. --------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 25556 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Challenge in this Writ Petition is against Ext.P9 interim order passed by the second respondent. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 and P4 appeals against Ext.P1 and P2 orders of assessments issued under the provisions of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976 (in short “the Act”). Along with the appeals, the petitioner also filed Ext.P5 and P6 stay petitions. When Revenue Recovery steps were initiated for realisation of the amount covered under the impugned assessments, pending disposal of the appeals or stay petitions, the petitioner approached this Court on an earlier occasion. In Ext.P8 judgment this Court directed the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the appeals as well as the stay petitions and stayed further coercive steps for recovery, till orders are passed on Ext.P5 and P6 stay applications. 2. Ext.P9 is the order issued by the second respondent considering the stay applications. After narrating contentions of the appellant, without any application of mind to the merit of such contentions and without making any observations on the merits of the contentions, the appellate authority ordered stay of collection till the disposal of the appeal on condition of payment of 50% of the disputed tax. It is trite law that while interim orders WPC NO.25556/2009 2 are passed by the statutory appellate authorities, there should be application of mind and consideration of the contentions which should reflect in the orders to be passed. Ext.P9 is obviously an order issued in violation of the settled legal principles as well as the principles of natural justice. Hence I am inclined to quash Ext.P9 as unsustainable in the eye of law. 2. Considering the fact that, the appeal petitions are pending consideration since May, 2009 onwards, the appellate authority can be directed to consider and dispose of the same at an early date. Hence the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 and P4 appeals after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The respondents are directed to keep in abeyance all further proceedings for realisation of the amount covered under Ext.P1 and P2, till final orders are passed on Ext.P3 and P4 appeals. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc