IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5528 of 2011(M) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ C.P.MATHEN, MOKSHA FOODS & BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMTIED, G-261, MAIN AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036. BY SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV.SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN SRI.BINU MATHEW SRI.TERRY V.JAMES SRI.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE WEALTH TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), KOCHI-682 018. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX (APPEALS)II, SAN JUAN BUILDING, KOCHI-682 018. R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI.JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.5528/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15/11/2010 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR 2003-04. P1(A) COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15/11/2010 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR 2004-05. P1(B) COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15/11/2010 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR 2005-06. P1(C) COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15/11/2010 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR 2006-07. P2 COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 6/12/2010 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT FOR 2003-04. P2(A) COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 6/12/2010 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR 2004-05. P2(B) COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 6/12/2010 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR 2005-06. P2(C) COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 6/12/2010 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR 2006-07. P3 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 31/12/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. P3(A) COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 31/12/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. P3(B) COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 31/12/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. P3(C) COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 31/12/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/1/2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF STAY PETITION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. P4(A) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/1/2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF STAY PETITION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. P4(B) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/1/2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF STAY PETITION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. P4(C) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/1/2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF STAY PETITION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ sts P.A.TO.JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.5528 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Matter arises under the Wealth Tax Act. Challenge is against Ext.P4 series interim orders issued by the second respondent, the appellate authority, dismissing the stay petitions filed along with appeals. The petitioner had preferred Ext.P2 series appeals against Ext.P1 series orders of assessment completed with respect to the years 2003-04 to 2006-07. Ext.P3 series are the stay petitions filed along with the appeals. The stay petitions were rejected under Ext.P4 series orders. 2. According to the petitioner the appellate authority had failed in considering any of the grounds raised in the appeals and the stay petitions were dismissed on a total non- application of mind, through cryptic orders. It is contended that there is total lack of proper exercise of jurisdiction vested on the appellate authority and the appellate authority had failed in exercising the discretion in a legal and proper manner. 2 W.P.(C).No.5528 of 2011 3. On a perusal of Ext.P4 series orders I notice that the stay petitions were rejected in a highly cryptic manner stating that the reasons stated for seeking stay are not convincing and satisfactory. It is trite law by this time that the statutory appellate authorities are exercising quasi- judicial functions and such authorities are expected to issue reasoned orders even in matters of interim applications. The impugned orders does not reflect any proper application of mind with respect to exercise of power of granting or denying interim relief. No reason is mentioned as to why the request for stay is not 'convincing and satisfactory'. The contention of the petitioner is that, if the amount in dispute is collected through coercive steps of recovery pending disposal of the appeals, that will cause severe prejudice and legal injuries, and it will defeat the purpose of the appeals itself. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, I am of the view that Ext.P4 series of orders are not sustainable in the eye of law. However, I am not proposing to remand the matter for passing fresh orders in view of the fact 3 W.P.(C).No.5528 of 2011 that interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the second respondent to dispose of the appeals itself on an early basis and to restrain the collection and recovery subject to conditions which would be imposed. 5. Therefore this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 series of appeals after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as early as possible at any rate within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. Till such time the appeals are disposed of, recovery of amounts covered under Ext.P1 series orders of assessment shall be kept in abeyance, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting one third of the total amount due within a period of 3 weeks from today, and furnishes security bond for the balance amount, without sureties. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/