IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10705 of 2010(K) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M/S. PUTHEN MODERN RICE MILL, OKKAL .P.O., KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS PARTNER P.D.THOMAS. BY ADV. MR.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, 1ST CIRCLE, PERUMBAVOOR. 2. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DEPUTY THAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ALUVA. 4. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AUDIT ASSESSMENT) COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERRY AT ALUVA. BY ADV. MR.JOSE JOSEPH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C).No. 10705 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenged Ext.P1 assessment order as well as Ext.P2 order imposing penalty, which led to Ext.P3 order, whereby some modification was ordered by the I Appellate Authority. However, being still aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Exts.P4 and P5 second appeals, along with Exts.P6 and P7 petitions for stay, which are pending consideration before the 2nd respondent/Tribunal. Meanwhile, Revenue Recovery proceedings were also initiated by the 3rd respondent as borne by Exts.P8 and P8A. While so, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P10 order, pursuant to the direction given by this Court vide Ext.P9 judgment, to consider and pass orders in the interlocutory application for stay. As per Ext.P10, the 2nd respondent has directed the petitioner to satisfy 50% of the disputed amount and furnish W.P.(C).No. 10705 of 2010 2 security for the balance; correctness and sustainability of which forms the subject matter of challenge, in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P10 has been passed in a mechanical manner, without stating any reason and hence is not a 'speaking order' at all. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that, the stipulation in Ext.P10 to satisfy 50% of the liability could be confined to 50% of the liability under the modified order, directed to be passed by the I Appellate Authority vide Ext.P3 and hence that the apprehension expressed from the part of the petitioner, that the 1st respondent is demanding 50% of the disputed amount as shown on Exts.P1 and P2 is quite out of place. However, since the modified orders pursuant to Ext.P3 are still to be passed, taking note of the undisputed extent of the facts and figures as revealed from the records, this Court directs the petitioner to satisfy a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs W.P.(C).No. 10705 of 2010 3 (Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand only), so as to avail the benefit of interim stay, ordered by the 2nd respondent/ Tribunal vide Ext.P10 during the pendency of the appeal. Since, the time stipulated in Ext.P10 is already over, the petitioner is directed to deposit the said amount and furnish security for the balance, as provided therein, within a further period of 2 weeks. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE nl