1988 (7) TMI 378 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Proper exercise of discretion by the first respondent under section 34(5) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act.
2. Legality of exhibit P9 order issued by the first respondent.
3. Jurisdiction of the Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to reconsider the matter.
4. Adherence of statutory authorities to guidelines in passing orders on stay petitions.
5. Public interest and repercussions of arbitrary exercise of discretionary power by authorities.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Proper exercise of discretion by the first respondent under section 34(5) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act.
The appellant argued that the first respondent failed to exercise discretion in accordance with the law while passing exhibit P9 order. The Court noted that the first respondent, as an appellate authority, has the power to pass appropriate orders in stay petitions pending appeals, as specified under section 34(5) of the Act.

Issue 2: Legality of exhibit P9 order issued by the first respondent.
The Court found that the first respondent had acted mechanically and without proper application of mind while passing exhibit P9 order. It was observed that the order did not adhere to the guidelines laid down by previous court decisions, making it illegal and unauthorized.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to reconsider the matter.
The Court held that if a statutory authority fails to exercise discretion in a reasonable manner, the Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the authority to reconsider the matter in accordance with the law. In this case, the Court directed the first respondent to reevaluate the matter and exercise discretion properly under section 34(5) of the Act.

Issue 4: Adherence of statutory authorities to guidelines in passing orders on stay petitions.
The Court emphasized the importance of statutory authorities following guidelines and principles laid down in previous court decisions while passing orders on stay petitions. Failure to do so may result in irreparable harm to both parties involved and public interest.

Issue 5: Public interest and repercussions of arbitrary exercise of discretionary power by authorities.
The Court highlighted the public importance of statutory authorities exercising discretion in accordance with the law. It expressed concern over the casual and careless manner in which authorities were passing orders on stay petitions, emphasizing the need for proper evaluation of facts and adherence to legal principles to prevent harm to parties and public interest.

In conclusion, the Court set aside the judgment of the learned single judge, allowed the writ appeal, quashed exhibit P9 order, and directed the first respondent to dispose of the stay petition in accordance with the law. The Court also emphasized the importance of statutory authorities functioning independently and in compliance with legal obligations to prevent undue harm to parties and public interest.