IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 16334 of 2011(N) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SRI.T.ABOOBACKER, PROPRIETOR, BROTHERS STORES ,KUMBIDI, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN, SMT.G.DEEPA. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 303. 2. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, METTUPALAYAM STREET, PALAKKAD - 679 001. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD - 679 001. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.16334/2011 N APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 1/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEARS 2008-09. P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 1/06/2011 ISSUEDBY THE THIRD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEARS 2009-10. P3: COPY OF THE REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEARS 2008-09. P4: COPY OF THE REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEARS 2009-10. P5: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DTD. 15/02/2011 FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEARS 2008-09. P6: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DTD. 15/02/2011 FILED BRFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEARS 2009-10/ P7: COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DTD. 15/02/2011 FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEARS 2008-09. P8: COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DTD. 15/02/2011 FILED FOR THE YEARS 2009-10. P9: COPY OF THE EARLY HEARING PETITION FILED BEFORE THE YEARS 2008-09. P10: COPY OF THE EARLY HEARING PETITION FILED FOR THE YEARS 2009-10 BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. P11: COPY OF THE STAY ORDER DTD. 10/03/2011 BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR 2008-09. P12: COPY OF THE STAY ORDER DTD. 10/03/2011 BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR 2009-10. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 16334 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P11 and P12 interim orders issued by the 2nd respondent appellate authority. The petitioner filed statutory appeals against Exts.P3 and P4 revised orders of assessment, before the 2nd respondent, as per Exts.P5 and P6. Stay petitions were also filed along with the appeals, which were disposed of through Exts.P11 and P12 orders, granting interim relief subject to condition of the petitioner remitting 60% of the disputed tax on or before 31.3.2011 and on furnishing adequate security for the balance. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the condition for payment of 60% was imposed in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind and without advertence to any of the contentions raised in the appeals, in its proper perspective. It is contended that, the huge additions made on the basis of alleged suppression is highly unrealistic and arbitrary. According to the petitioner, there is every chance of the appellate authority WP(C) .16334/2011 2 interfering with the appeals and granting considerable relief. That being the position, insistence for the rigorous condition for payment of 60%, is causing onerous liability which is totally unworkable, is the contention. 3. On a perusal of Exts.P11 and P12 orders, it is noticed that, the appellate authority had illustrated all the main contentions raised. But the interim orders are totally lacking with respect to any consideration of the merits of such contentions. It is trite law by this time that the appellate authorities are expected to issue reasoned orders, while granting interim relief. Any order without reflecting consideration of merits of the contentions raised, at least on a prima facie basis is unsustainable in the eye of law. Further it is noticed the appellate authority has not mentioned any reason regarding fixation of the condition to the extent of 60% . Under the above mentioned circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned orders could not withstand the test of sustainability under law. 4. However, I am not proposing to remand the matter to the appellate authority for passing fresh orders, in view of the fact that the appeals are pending disposal and such a WP(C) .16334/2011 3 course will only help to multiply the proceedings. Interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the appellate authority to have an early disposal of the appeals and till then to restrain the recovery steps by imposing a less rigorous condition. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Exts.P5 and P6 appeals, after affording 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. 6. Till such time the appeals are disposed of, in modification of the conditions imposed through Exts.P11 and P12, the respondents are restrained from recovering amounts covered under Exts.P3 and P4, initiated on the basis of Exts.P1 and P2, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting 1/4th of the total amount due under the impugned assessments and on furnishing security bond for the balance, without sureties, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .16334/2011 4