IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7122 of 2011(M) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- JOSE MATHEW, ROYAL MARBLES & GRANITES, MUTTUCHIRA, KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALIDHARAN (AROOR) RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, VAIKOM- 686141. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.V, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTTAYAM-686 001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682015. 4. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALA- 686575. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.7122 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T An interim order issued by the third respondent statutory appellate authority, disposing the stay petition filed along with statutory appeals instituted against Ext.P1 order of penalty imposed under section 67(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. By the impugned order, the appellate authority had insisted the petitioner to make payment of 60% of the amount in dispute and to furnish security for the balance amount, as condition for stay. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that, the condition was imposed in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind and without proper advertence to the grounds raised in the appeal. It is also contended that the interim order was issued without affording an opportunity of personal hearing. Request made by the authorised 2 W.P.(C)No.7122 of 2011 representative of the petitioner for an adjournment of the hearing was not allowed. However, it is contended that imposition of a condition for payment of 60% is highly unreasonable and arbitrary and the same is becoming unworkable, considering the financial stringency now experienced by the petitioner. 3. On a perusal of Ext.P8 order, it is evident that the appellate authority had illustrated all the main grounds raised in the appeal. The merits of such contentions were considered in detail and the appellate authority found that those grounds are not fully sustainable. However, it is observed that to examine correctness of such contentions, detailed verification of accounts and records is required. Having been found that a prima facie case has been established, the appellate authority had insisted the petitioner to make payment of 60% of the amount and to furnish security for the balance. 4. On the face of Ext.P8 order, I am not agreeable with the contention of the petitioner that the said order was 3 W.P.(C)No.7122 of 2011 issued in a mechanical manner without application of mind. The order reflects proper advertance to the grounds raised and reasoning for grant of interim stay is illustrated. However, the appellate authority has not stated any specific reason for fixing the condition at 60% payment. Even though imposition of condition for grant of stay is a matter coming within the discretion of the authority, I find that no specific reason is mentioned for fixing 60% of the amount. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that, interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the appellate authority to have an expeditious disposal of the appeal and till then to impose a less rigorous condition. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 appeal, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. Till the disposal of the appeal, in modification of Ext.P8 order, the respondents are directed to keep in 4 W.P.(C)No.7122 of 2011 abeyance recovery of amounts covered under Ext.P1, which is now initiated on the basis of Ext.P4 revenue recovery notice, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting 1/3rd of the amount due and on furnishing security bond for the balance amount, within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ami/