IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24386 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JOSEPH KURIAKOSE, PROPRIETOR, HOTEL ELITE CONTINENTAL, M.C.ROAD, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. MR. HARISANKAR V. MENON MS. MEERA V.MENON MR. MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ASST.COMMISSIONER (AUDIT ASSESSMENT) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 24386 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 25th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Aggrieved of Ext.P1 order passed by the first respondent, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the second respondent along with a petition for stay. After considering the I.A. for stay, the second respondent passed Ext.P3 order, granting interim stay during the pendency of the appeal; however directing the petitioner/appellant to satisfy the 50 % of the balance due within two weeks and to furnish adequate security for the remaining amount, so as to avail the benefit of stay. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, absolutely no reasons have been mentioned by the second respondent, while imposing the condition to satisfy 50 % of the amount allegedly due from the petitioner, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay. It is also brought to notice of this court that, the rate of tax adopted by the first respondent is not correct, in view of the relevant provisions of law as highlighted before the second respondent, which however has not been referred to or discussed while passing Ext.P3. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Obviously, Ext.P3 order refers to the contentions taken from the part of the petitioner/appellant and it is on recording satisfaction WP (C) No. 24386 of 2009 : 2 : about the prima facie case made out by the petitioner, that the appellate authority sought to grant interim stay. But, for imposing the condition to satisfy 50% of the amount stated as due, absolutely no reasons are forthcoming. The law is now well settled as made clear by this Court in Supreme Electrical Engg. (P)Ltd. Vs Commercial Tax Officer (2008 (3) KLT 805) that the authorities will have to specify the reasons, for imposing the condition in interim order. In the instant case, since Ext.P3 order stands as an exception to aforesaid law declared by this Court, it cannot have existence any further. 5. In the above facts and circumstances, Ext.P3 is set aside and the second respondent is directed to reconsider the petition for stay and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, till such orders are passed, all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P4 and P5, shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd