IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2009 / 17TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19118 of 2009(H) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ THE DEVICOLAM DISTILLERIES LIMITED, PARAKKAMUGAL, KUSUMAGIRI P.O., KAKKANAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, MR.J.ANANTHARAMAN. BY ADVS. MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR MR.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR MR.K.JOHN MATHAI MR.P.BENNY THOMAS MR.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB), MATTANCHERRY, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INT), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM AT EDAPPALLY. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (TAXES), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 19118 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 8th July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenging Exts. P1 to P3 orders passed by the first respondent in respect of the assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08, the petitioner has preferred statutory appeals before the second respondent as borne by Exts. P4 to P6 appeals accompanied by Exts. P7 to P9 petitions for stay. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite substantiating the merits of the case, the second respondent has passed a mechanical and stereotyped order directing the petitioner to satisfy 50% of the due amount while granting interim stay, as borne by Ext. P10, which, hence is sought to be intercepted by filing this Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Obviously, the discussion in Ext.P10 is specifically as to W.P.(C) No. 19118 OF 2009 2 the points agitated from the part of the petitioner, whereupon satisfaction was recorded by the second respondent , holding that the petitioner (appellant therein) had established a prima facie case. Absolutely no reason was offered therein as to why the petitioner was not entitled to have the benefit of absolute stay. In other words, what was the circumstance, which compelled the second respondent to impose a condition directing the petitioner to remit 50% of the due amount for enjoying the benefit of the interim order is not discernible therefrom. The manner in which such interim orders have been passed, rather in a mechanical manner, has invited heavy criticism by this Court as well as by the Apex Court on many an occasion. The latest instance to point out is the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Ravi Gupta vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi and another (2009) 22 VST 529 , where it has been made clear that the interim orders shall bear specific reasons while imposing conditions . 4. In the above circumstances, Ext.P10 order impugned in the present Writ Petition has to go, which accordingly is set W.P.(C) No. 19118 OF 2009 3 aside. Considering the submission made from the part of the petitioner that they are ready and willing to deposit a portion of the amount to prove the bonafides, the petitioner is directed to effect 1/3rd of the amount due within a period of one month and shall furnish security for the balance amount. On such an event, the second respondent shall consider and finalise Exts. P4 to P6 appeals, in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within two months thereafter. The Writ Petition is disposed of, as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk