P. C. RINZO Vs. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is against exhibit P10 interim order passed by the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. Against the order imposing penalty under section 44(8) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (the KVAT Act), which was confirmed by the first appellate authority, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal by filing exhibit P7 second appeal. Exhibit P8 is the stay petition filed along with the appeal. The stay petition was posted for hearing before the Tribunal. Representative of the petitioner appeared and argued the matter on August 18, 2010. Argument note as per exhibit P9 was submitted before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had issued exhibit P10 order granting conditional stay insisting on the petitioner to make payment of a sum of Rs. 75,000 out of the total amount of Rs. 1,71,000 imposed as penalty. According to the petitioner exhibit P10 order is issued in a highly cryptic manner without proper application of mind and without advertence to the grounds raised in the appeal. On a perusal of exhibit P10, it is noticed that the order will not reflect consideration of any of the grounds raised in the appeal. The Tribunal had only observed that they have pursued the affidavit filed in support of the application and the records which were made available. It is observed that, having regard to the circumstances projected, it is proper to grant conditional stay on payment of a sum of Rs. 75,000.

(2.) It is settled law by this time that the statutory appellate authorities are bound to pass speaking orders reflecting application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and also reflecting proper advertence to the grounds raised in appeal. The authority should appreciate sustainability of the grounds on a prima facie basis and should arrive at a conclusion as to whether it is fit case for granting stay, with or without imposing any condition. Such considerations are not reflected in the order impugned. Therefore I am of the view that exhibit P10 order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

(3.) However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal itself was posted for hearing before the Tribunal on October 8, 2010 and on that date an adjournment was sought on behalf of the Revenue and the matter now stands posted on November 29, 2010.