At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN
For the Petitioner: R. Senniappan, Advocate. For the Respondents: S. Kanmani Annamalai, Govt Advocate (Taxes).
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in S.P.No.503/2013 in VAT.A.P.No.1009/2013 dated 26.02.2013 and quash the same as illegal.)
1. With the consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Government Advocate (Taxes), takes notice for the respondents.
2. The relevant assessment year is 2008-2009. The Assessing Office, the above mentioned second respondent, has completed the assessment. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the above mentioned first respondent. Along with the appeal, the petitioner has also filed the stay petition. The first respondent has passed the order in stay petition with the following conditions:
i) Considering the facts represented by the Authorised Representative, the petitioner is directed to pay 25% of the disputed tax of Rs.84,839/- before the assessing authority, on or before 25.03.2013;
ii) The remaining tax amount of Rs.1,69,675/- along with the penalty amount in full is ordered to be stayed.
iii) The petitioner shall file sufficient and legally acceptable security either in HH or G (Indemnity Bond for mortgage of immovably property or Bank Guarantee) for the sum of tax and penalty covered in Clause (ii) above, before the assessing authority, on or before 25.03.2013.
iv) The stay is valid for one hundred and eighty days from the date of this order or till the disposal of the connected main appeal, whichever is earlier."
3. In respect of the above conditions, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly stated that the petitioner had already complied with the first condition of depositing 25% of the disputed tax. So far as the second and third conditions are concerned, the learned counsel requests this Court to direct to execute personal bond for the balance amount instead of furnishing Indemnity Bond or Bank Guarantee as directed by the Appellate Authority. Learned counsel would plead that due to financial constraints and temporary closure of the business as on date, the petitioner could not furnish bank guarantee.
4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is a discretionary order and therefore it should not be interfered with.
5. There is no dispute that the petitioner has complied with the first condition by paying 25% of the disputed tax. In respect of third condition, he undertakes to execute a personal bond to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. In these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to execute a personal bond for the balance amount of tax and penalty to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer within a period of three weeks from t
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
he date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that only condition No.3 imposed on the petitioner is modified and the rest of the conditions imposed by the first respondent remain unaltered. 6. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2013 is closed. No costs.