IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19477 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.PERIYAR CEMENTS (P) LTD., NIDA, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY C.S.IBRAHIMKUTTY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. BY ADV. MR. ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON MR. HARISANKAR V. MENON MS. MEERA V.MENON MR. MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ASST.COMMISSIONER (AA), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C. K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 19477 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 13th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Challenging Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner had filed Ext.P2 appeal along with petition for stay, before the second respondent. Even though the appeal was filed about 2 years ago, the second respondent chose to pass an interim order in the Interlocutory Application dated 11.12.2007 only on 24.6.2009, as evident from Ext.P3. The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite the satisfaction arrived at by the appellate authority as to the prima facie case projected by the petitioner, the interim order has been passed quite mechanically directing the petitioner to deposit 50 %, which hence is under challenge. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. The law is well settled that the quasi judicial authorities have to state the reasons while passing interim orders as well, as made clear by the Apex Court in Ravi Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi and another (2009 (22) VST Page 529). Obviously, Ext.P3 is not a speaking order at all. This being the position the second respondent is liable to reconsider the matter. However, considering the fact that the memorandum of appeal was filed in December, 2007, the second respondent is hereby directed to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 WP (C) No. 19477 of 2009 : 2 : appeal, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, till appropriate orders are passed on Ext.P2, all further coercive proceedings, stated as being pursued against the petitioner, shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd