IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2011 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6672 of 2011(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M/S.ST.JOHNS UMBRELLA MART, THATHAMPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER, DR.ABRAHAM THAYYIL, THAYYIL HOUSE, THATHAMPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, ALAPPUZHA. PIN- 693 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM.PIN-694 001 R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 6672 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4 interim order passed by the 2nd respondent appellate authority on a stay petition filed along with Ext.P2 appeal, which was instituted against an order imposing penalty (Ext.P1) to the tune of Rs.11,96,000/- . The penalty was imposed on the basis that the petitioner had claimed and obtained credit of input tax on the opening stock as on 1.4.2005 and received excess refund of input tax. Penalty was imposed also on the ground that there was discrepancy in the accounts. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the huge amount of penalty was imposed on totally unsustainable and flimsy grounds and the authority is keeping a vengeance attitude against the petitioner in mulcting with liability of huge amount by way of penalty. Elaborate grounds were raised in the appeal against the order imposing penalty. 3. But the appellate authority while disposing the stay petition had imposed a condition for payment of 35% of the WP(C) .6672/2011 2 amount due and to furnish security for the balance amount. According to the petitioner, the condition was imposed in a mechanical manner without adverting to the grounds raised in the appeal as well as the contentions submitted at the time of hearing. 4. On a perusal of Ext.P4 impugned order, it is revealed that the appellate authority had illustrated the main contentions. But the order does not reflect any consideration of the merits of such contentions by the appellate authority. Regarding consideration of the contentions, the appellate authority had observed in a cryptic manner that, the appellant was successful in making out a case for granting conditional stay. It is trite law by this time that the appellate authorities are exercising quasi judicial functions and that they are expected to write reasons for granting interim orders. It is necessary that interim orders should reflect proper reasoning arrived for imposing conditions, on the basis of appreciation of prima facie merits of the contention raised. 5. Since the order does not reflect any requirements as stated , I am of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law. However, I am not proposing to WP(C) .6672/2011 3 remand the matter for passing fresh orders, in view of the fact that statutory appeal is pending disposal before the authorities for some time and interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of appeal on an early basis and till then to stay the recovery subject to imposition of less rigorous condition. 6. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd 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 two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 7. Till such time the appeal is disposed of, in modification of Ext.P4, the respondents are restrained from realising the amounts covered under Ext.P1 order, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting 25% of the amount of penalty due and on furnishing security bond for the balance amount, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment . C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .6672/2011 4