IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2011 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 8846 of 2011(E) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- S.JOHN JACOB,SIMON TIMBERS, CONVENT ROAD, PRAVACHAMBALAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER(IB), COMMERCIAL TAXES,O/O.THE INSPECTING ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE),PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001. 3. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,COMMERCIAL TAXES SECOND CIRCLE, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001 4. MANAGER, CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK, NEMOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001. 5. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2011, ALONG WITH WPC. NO.8846 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).Nos.8834 & 8846 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in both these cases are against interim orders issued by the 2nd respondent appellate authority, while disposing of the interim applications filed along with appeals, which were instituted against orders imposing penalty under section 67(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act). In both these cases, interim stay were granted subject to condition of the petitioner remitting 40% of the penalty amount in dispute and on furnishing security bond for the balance amount. 2. Contention of the petitioners is that, the conditions were reimposed in a mechanical manner without application of mind. According to the petitioners, the appellate authority had failed in adverting to the grounds raised in the appeals as well as the contentions urged at the time of hearing, in its real perspective. Hence the orders are unsustainable in the eye of law and the petitioners submit that there is a fair 2 W.P.(C).Nos.8834 & 8846 of 2011 chance of the appellate authority allowing the appeals. Hence, it is contended that the condition imposed is highly rigorous and unworkable. 3. On a perusal of the impugned interim orders, it is revealed that, the appellate authority had elaborately illustrated all the main contentions raised by the petitioners. It is evident that the appellate authority had gone through the arguments and found that a final decision could be arrived, only after thorough analysis of the case. It is further observed that considering the contentions, a lenient view can be taken and accordingly stay was granted insisting on payment of 40% of the amount. 4. However, it is evident that the appellate authority had failed to appreciate merits of the contentions and in arriving at any conclusion regarding sustainability of such contentions, atleast on a prima facie basis. So also it is evident that, the appellate authority had not mentioned any specific reasons with respect to imposition of the conditions. It is settled principle by this time that the appellate 3 W.P.(C).Nos.8834 & 8846 of 2011 authorities, exercising quasi judicial functions, are expected to mention reasonings for granting stay and also for imposing conditions. Going by the tenure of the orders impugned in these writ petitions, nothing is reflected to show that there was proper application of mind with respect to the merits of the contentions raised. 5. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that, the impugned orders are unsustainable in the eye of law. However, I am not proposing to remand the matter back to the appellate authority for passing fresh orders since the appeals are pending disposal before that authority and because of the fact that such course will only promote multiplicity of proceedings. 6. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P4 appeal in both these cases, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4 W.P.(C).Nos.8834 & 8846 of 2011 7. Till such time the appeals are disposed of, in modification of the impugned order (Ext.P6), recovery of amounts covered under the orders imposing penalty shall be kept in abeyance, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting 20% of the amounts in dispute and on furnishing security bond for the balance amount, within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 8. Needless to say that, the petitioner shall be permitted to operate the Bank Accounts despite the prohibitory orders if any issued. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/