Allowed

M/s. Ritebrand Retail P Ltd. v. The Appellate Deputy

Madras HC17 Dec 2015WP/39837/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order requiring the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee for pending penalty while appealing. The court, relying on precedents allowing personal bonds, directed the petitioner to execute a personal bond instead, thereby allowing the appeal to proceed with stay.

What did the court decide?

Direction to execute a personal bond for the penalty amount in lieu of furnishing a bank guarantee within two weeks.

M/s. Ritebrand Retail P Ltd. Vs The Appellate Deputy — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 17.12.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

W.P.No.39837 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶6

M/s.Ritebrand Retail P Ltd.,

¶7

represented by its Authorised Signatory, Flat No.32, G Block Re-classic Apartment, New No.68, Baroda Street,

¶8

West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Petitioner Vs

¶9

1 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT)-Central, No.1, Greams Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 006.

¶10

2 The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Kodambakkam Assessment Circle, Chennai 600 006. Respondents

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in S.P.No.432/2015 in A.P.V.541 of 2015 and quash the order dated 23.11.2015 in so far as it relates to the furnishing of bank guarantee for the penalty of Rs.56,985/- pending disposal of the appeal in A.P.V.541 of 2015.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. V. Sundareswaran For Respondents : Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai Addl. Govt. Pleader (T)

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), who took notice for the respondents and with their consent, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal.

¶15

The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition challenging the order dated 23.11.2015 on the file of the 1^st respondent, imposing a condition that the petitioner should furnish a bank guarantee for the penalty during the currency of appeal proceedings.

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

The petitioner filed an appeal before the 1^st respondent challenging the Assessment order passed by the 2nd respondent. The appeal was taken on file by the 1^st respondent along with stay petition filed by the petitioner. The appellate authority was pleased to grant an order of stay in the said petition, directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee in respect of penalty amount on or before 22.12.2015. The said onerous condition is challenged in this writ petition.

¶18

The only grievance of the petitioner is that they were asked to furnish bank guarantee for the penalty imposed on or before 22.12.2015.

¶19

This Court, in catena of decisions, directed the
assessees to execute a personal bond in lieu of furnishing bank
guarantee.
6. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a
direction to the petitioner to execute personal bond for the
penalty amount, in lieu of furnishing bank guarantee, within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. On such executing the personal bond, the order of stay
granted by the 1 st respondent shall be in force till the
disposal of the appeal. No costs. Consequently, connected
M.P.No.1 of 2015 is closed.
msr
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT)-Central,
No.1, Greams Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 006.
2 The Assistant Commissioner (CT)
Kodambakkam Assessment Circle,
Chennai 600 006.
+ 1 cc to Spl.Govt.Pleader (Taxes) Chennai SR 68232
skv(co)
prk4/1
W.P.No.39837 of 2015

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/s. Ritebrand Retail P Ltd. v. The Appellate Deputy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Ritebrand Retail P Ltd. v. The Appellate Deputy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cable Operators Guild of Vs Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep

M/S.Perfect Power System Vs the Deputy Commercial Tax

M/S.Ad Add, Vs the Additional Appellate

M/s. Ritebrand Retail P Ltd. Vs The Appellate Deputy

G. Karpagam Vs The Secretary

M/s. Surya Service Station, Vs Appellate Assistant