IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35280 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M/S. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD., VISMAYA BLDG, 5TH, 6TH & 7TH FLOOR, INFO PARK, KUSUMAGIRI.P.O., KAKKANAD.P.O., PIN-682030. REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (FINANCE) MR. MATHEW.P.M. BY ADV. SMT.K.LATHA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (WC) ERNAKULAM-682019. 3. DEUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682019. 4. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.35280 of 2010-H ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 common order issued by the appellate authority through which interlocutory applications for stay filed along with various statutory appeals, filed against assessments pertaining to various months in the year 2008-09 and 2009-2010 were disposed of. The appellate authority had insisted a condition for payment of the 50% of the amount due, while granting interim stay. 2. According to the petitioner, the interim order was issued without proper application of mind in a mechanical manner and it was issued without proper advertence to the grounds raised in the appeal. It is further contended that the condition imposed is highly rigorous and it had caused onerous liability on the petitioner, which could not be complied with under the present financial situation of the petitioner company. W.P(C) No.35280 of 2010-H 2 3. On a perusal of Ext.P4, I notice that the appellate authority had illustrated almost all the contentions raised in the appeal. It is evident that the interlocutory application was disposed of after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. After illustrating the contentions, the appellate authority had considered merits of such contentions and about the prima-facie sustainability of such contentions. The appellate authority had observed that sustainability of the rival contentions can be appreciated only after verification of the books of accounts. But the appellate authority found that the petitioner had established a prima-facie case for granting conditional stay. 4. From the contents of the order impugned, I am not agreeable that it is an order passed without application of mind. The order reflects proper advertence to the grounds raised and proper application of mind. But it is pertinent to note that the appellate authority had not observed any specific reasoning with respect to the imposition of condition to the tune of 50%. In a recent W.P(C) No.35280 of 2010-H 3 decision in Supreme Electrical Engg. (P) Ltd. V. Commercial Tax Officer (2008(3) KLT 805) it is observed a Division Bench of this Court that the appellate authorities are bound to show reasons for imposing conditions and the appellate authority should specifically mention reasons as to why the appellant is not entitled for a full stay. Considering the dictum, I am of the view that the appellate authority has not stated any specific reason for imposing condition to the extent of 50% of the amount, even after finding that there is need for further consideration on the basis of verification of documents and books of accounts, and further even after finding that the appellant had established a prima facie case. 5. Under the above circumstances Ext.P4 order is liable to be quashed. However, considering pendency of the appeals before the authority for quite a long time, I am not remitting the matter back for passing fresh interim orders. On the other hand interest of justice will be served, if the appellate authority is directed to dispose of the appeals on W.P(C) No.35280 of 2010-H 4 an early basis and till then the respondents are restrained from recovery of the amounts, subject to appropriate conditions. 6. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 series appeals, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 7. Till such time the appeals are disposed of, recovery of the amounts in dispute shall be kept in abeyance, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting 1/3rd of the total amount demanded and on furnishing security bond for the balance amount, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE //True Copy// ab P.A to Judge