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. 33214 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.SULAIMAN, N.S.CHICKEN AGENCY, KOTTAPPURAM, VALANCHERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SMT.K.HYMAVATHY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (KVAT), SPECIAL CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MALAPPURAM-676 505. 2. KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM (CAMP SITTING AT PALAKKAD), 678 004. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MALAPPURAM AT MANJERI-676 121. 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: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.33214 of 2010-B ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P9 and P10 orders passed by the second respondent Tribunal. By the impugned orders the Tribunal had disposed of the stay petitions filed along with statutory appeals. Through the interim orders conditional stay was granted pending disposal of the appeals subject to the petitioner remitting 1/3rd of the tax amount and the penalty, in dispute. Contention of the petitioner is that the Tribunal had imposed such conditions without adverting to the grounds raised in the appeals. It is stated that the interim orders are issued in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind. Various precedents of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court were placed for reference in order to canvass the position that the statutory appellate authorities are bound to consider the grounds raised in the appeal while granting interim stay and that the interim orders should reflect proper consideration of the ground and proper application of mind. 2. On a perusal of the impugned orders, Exts.P9 and P10, it is noticed that the appellate tribunal had stated that they W.P(C) No.33214 of 2010-B 2 have pursued the affidavit filed in support of the applications and the records of the case. But nothing is reflected in the impugned orders as to what are the grounds raised in the appeal nor with respect to any consideration of such grounds with proper application of mind. Going by the settled legal precedents the impugned orders does not satisfy the requirements as it does not reflects any advertance to the grounds and any proper consideration of merits of such grounds. It is obligatory on the part of the statutory appellate authorities to mention proper reasoning while granting interim orders imposing any condition. 3. Under such circumstances, Exts.P9 and P10 could not be termed as interim orders issued with proper application application of mind with due advertance to the grounds raised in the appeal. Accordingly, those orders are not sustainable under law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeals itself are posted for hearing before the second respondent Tribunal, on 1.12.2010, as reflected from Exts.P9 and P10 orders. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the disposal of appeal, on arguing W.P(C) No.33214 of 2010-B 3 the matter on that date itself. Therefore, the petitioner seeks direction to restrain collection and recovery of amounts in dispute pending disposal of the appeals in question (Exts.P5 and P6). 5. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is allowed quashing Exts.P9 and P10. The second respondent Tribunal is directed to consider the matter afresh and to dispose of either Exts.P5 and P6 appeals or to pass fresh orders on Exts.P7 and P8 interim applications, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. Needless to say that collection and recovery of amounts covered under the impugned orders shall be kept in abeyance till such orders are passed by the second respondent Tribunal. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab