IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25418 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JAMALUDEEN KUNJU, B.M.AGENCIES, MEMANA, OCHIRA P.O., KOLLAM-690 526. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.K.JAGADEESH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690 518. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)-II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM-13. 3. THE DEPUTYM TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KARUNAGAPPALLY, PIN-690 518. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 25418 of 2010-B ---------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of Ext.P6 order passed by the appellate authority, directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the disputed amount, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the appeal. The sequence of events as narrated in the Writ Petition is that, being aggrieved of Ext.P3 order passed by the first respondent, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 appeal along with Ext.P5 petition for stay. Ext.P6 order has been passed in Ext.P5 interlocutory application, directing the petitioner to satisfy the liability to the extent as specified therein, which in turn is under challenge stating that it is not a speaking order at all. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader. 3. Going by the materials on records, it is revealed that the appellate authority has taken note of the contentions raised by the petitioner, while considering Ext.P5 interlocutory application and the points of arguments have been noted down therein. However, the sustainability of the said contentions have not been discussed by W.P(C) No. 25418 of 2010-B 2 the appellate authority, but for simply observing that the petitioner has substantiated the position for conditional stay. The law has been made clear by the Apex Court in Ravi Gupta V. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi & another (2009) 22 VST 529 (SC), whereby it has been held that the interim order shall contain specific reason, so as to impose the condition. Ext.P6 order passed by the appellate authority does not stand the test of the law and the same is not supported by any reason. 4. Accordingly, Ext.P6 is set aside and the appellate authority ie. the second respondent is directed to re-consider Ext.P5 application for stay and pass a 'speaking order' after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that till such orders are passed on Ext.P5, all further coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab