Ext.P1 assessment order passed by the 2nd respondent for the assessment year 2010-2011 is already under challenge by way of Ext.P2 appeal. After considering the Interlocutory Application for stay preferred by the petitioner, Ext.P3 order came to be passed by the 3rd respondent on 19.09.2014, whereby the petitioner has been required to satisfy 30% of the disputed liability, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay, during the pendency of the appeal. This in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. After hearing both the sides and also on going through the materials on record, particularly the contents of Ext.P3, this Court finds that, various points were raised from the part of the petitioner before the 3rd respondent in the appeal and also while considering the Interlocutory Application for stay. All these points W.P.(C) No.26698 of 2014 2 have been referred to in Ext.P3 order passed by the said respondent as narrated in paragraphs '1 to 7'. What is the effect of the said contentions and whether it is acceptable or not, are never referred to in the said order. After extracting the contentions raised by the petitioner as above, the 3rd respondent simply jumps to the conclusion in the next paragraph, stating that 30% of the liability is to be satisfied so as to avail the benefit of interim stay, despite the observation that the Appellate Authority was convinced that there was prima facie case while granting conditional stay. It has been made clear by this Court on many an occasion that the interim order shall also be speaking orders and reason for imposing the condition should be discernible from the order. The latest in the series is the decision reported in 2014 (2) KLT 715 (Archana Agencies Vs.
Commercial Tax Officer).
After hearing both the sides, this Court does not require any second thought to hold that Ext.P3 is not liable to be termed as a speaking order and hence the matter requires to be reconsidered. Accordingly, Ext.P3 is set aside and the 3rd respondent is directed W.P.(C) No.26698 of 2014 3 to reconsider and pass a speaking order in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Coercive proceedings, if any, shall be kept in abeyance till such time.
Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of the writ petition, before the 3rd respondent, for further steps.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp