IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33289 of 2010(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- G.VIJAYAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.MATHA MOSAIC, THATTAMALA P.O, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.K.SRIKUMAR, SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN, SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 010. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(APPEALS), KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 013. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.33289 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Interim order of stay issued by the 2nd respondent, on a statutory appeal pending before that authority, is under challenge in this writ petition. Ext.P1 order of assessment was completed against the petitioner with respect to the year 2008-09 imposing huge tax liability based on additions made consequent to an inspection conducted at the business place of the petitioner. Ext.P2 is the statutory appeal filed against the assessment. Along with the appeal the petitioner had preferred Ext.P3 stay petition. Through Ext.P4 the 2nd respondent had granted interim stay imposing a condition for payment of 50% of the outstanding amounts and on furnishing adequate security for the balance, to the satisfaction of the assessing authority. 2. Ext.P4 is assailed on the ground that the appellate authority had failed to exercise the discretion W.P.(C).33289/10-I -2- vested on it in a proper and reasonable manner. Ext.P4 is lacking proper reasoning for imposition of the condition, is the submission. On a perusal of Ext.P4 it is revealed that the appellate authority had afforded a personal hearing and all the contentions raised against the assessment was adverted to by the authority. It is revealed that the main grounds urged in the appeal were illustrated in Ext.P4. But after such detailed illustrations, nothing is reflected in the order to show that the appellate authority had considered merits of such grounds. On the other hand, what is stated is that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for conditional stay and therefore the stay order is granted. It is settled law by this time that the statutory appellate authorities dealing with interim applications is at an obligation to show proper reasonings for granting interim reliefs. There should be due advertence to the grounds raised in the appeal. The authority should apply its mind with respect to merits of such contentions and arrive at prima facie conclusions regarding sustainability of such grounds. W.P.(C).33289/10-I -3- 3. In a recent decision in Supreme Electrical Engg. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (2008 (3) KLT 805) a Division Bench of this court observed that the interim order should reflect proper reasoning for imposition of a condition and it should also reflect reasons as to why the appellant is not entitled for an absolute stay. 4. As stated above, the impugned order is totally lacking from any reasoning and it does not reflect any proper consideration of the ground raised in the appeal. Therefore I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P4 is unsustainable in the eye of law. However, considering the fact that the appeal is pending disposal before the 2nd respondent, I am of the view that instead of remitting the matter for passing fresh orders, interest of justice will be served if the appellate authority is directed to dispose of the appeal on an early basis and till then the recovery steps are stayed on the basis of a less rigorous condition to be imposed. 5. In the result the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P4 is hereby quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to W.P.(C).33289/10-I -4- consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. Recovery of amounts covered under Ext.P1 order of assessment shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal as directed above, on condition of the petitioner making payment of 1/3rd of the tax amount in dispute and on furnishing Security Bond for the balance amount, within a period of one month from today. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb