IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2010 / 20TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 28812 of 2010 (B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ P.C.RINZO, ROYAL FURNITURE MART, DWARAKA, MANANTHAVADY. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOOTHIRI RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD III, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD-670 645. 2. THE VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM-682 015. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF COMMRCIAL TAXES, KALPATTA, WAYANAD-673 121. 4. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MANANTHAVADY-670 645. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.28812 of 2010-B ---------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P10 interim order passed by the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. Against the order imposing penalty under Section 44(8) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act), which was confirmed by the first appellate authority, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal by filing Ext.P7 second appeal. Ext.P8 is the stay petition filed along with the appeal. The stay petition was posted for hearing before the Tribunal. Representative of the petitioner appeared and argued the matter on 18.8.2010. Argument note as per Ext.P9 was submitted before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had issued Ext.P10 order granting conditional stay insisting on the petitioner to make payment of a sum of Rs.75,000/- out of the total amount of Rs.1,71,000/- imposed as penalty. 2. According to the petitioner Ext.P10 order is issued in a highly cryptic manner without proper application of mind and without inadvertence to the grounds raised in the appeal. On a perusal of Ext.P10, it is noticed that the order will not reflect W.P(C) No.28812 of 2010-B 2 consideration of any of the grounds raised in the appeal. The Tribunal had only observed that they have pursued the affidavit filed in support of the application and the records which were made available. It is observed that, having regard to the circumstances projected, it is proper to grant conditional stay on payment of a sum of Rs.75,000/-. 3. It is settled law by this time that the statutory appellate authorities are bound to pass speaking orders reflecting application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and also reflecting proper advertance to the grounds raised in the appeal. The authority should appreciate sustainability of the grounds on a prima facie basis and should arrive at a conclusion as to whether it is fit case for granting stay, with or without imposing any condition. Such considerations are not reflected in the order impugned. Therefore I am of the view that Ext.P10 order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal itself was posted for hearing before the Tribunal on 8.10.2010 and on that date an adjournment was sought on behalf of the Revenue and the matter now stands posted on 29.11.2010. 5. Under the above circumstances, I am not proposing to W.P(C) No.28812 of 2010-B 3 remit back the matter for passing fresh orders on the stay petition. On the other hand the interest of justice will be served by directing the appellate Tribunal to have an early disposal of the appeal and till such time to grant an interim stay imposing a condition which is not onerous in nature. 6. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 appeal after conducting a hearing of the same, if possible on 29.11.2010 itself or on any other near date to which the hearing will be adjourned. The appeal may be disposed of at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 7. Till such time orders are passed on Ext.P7 appeal, realisation of the amount of penalty shall be kept in abeyance on condition of the petitioner remitting 1/4th of the amount in dispute and also furnishing security for the balance amount, within a period of three weeks from today. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE //True Copy// ab P.A to Judge