Petitioner challenged stay order conditions in VAT appeal, arguing disproportionate security demand. Single Judge reduced security amount and directed personal bond instead of bank guarantee.
Petitioner directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- and execute a personal bond within two weeks instead of the demanded bank guarantee.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.08.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
W.P.(MD)No.15331 of 2015
M/s.Raja Enterprises, No.130, W.B.Road, Tiruchirapalli – 620 008, rep.by its Partner.
.. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Appellate Deputy Commissioner, (Commercial Taxes) Tiruchirapalli.
2.The Assistant Commissioner, (Commercial Taxes) Commercial Taxes Department,
Mailam Chantahi I Circle, Tiruchirapalli – 620 020. .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order bearing S.P.No.168/2015/VAT.AP/155/2015 dated 10.08.2015 of the 1st respondent and quash the same in so far as it relates to the conditions contained in paragraph 9.2 9.3 and 10 of the said order.
For Petitioner : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan
Senior Counsel for AL.Ganthimathi
For Respondents : Mr.R.Karthikeyan Governemnt Advocate takes notice
ORDER
Challenging the impugned order dated 10.08.2015 passed in S.P.No.168/2015/VAT.AP/155/2015 by the first respondent in so far as it relates to the conditions contained in paragraphs - 9.2 9.3 and 10, the present writ petition has been filed.
2.Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.
3.By consent, the present writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.
2
4.The only grievance put forth by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that against the Demand notice issued by the second respondent, the petitioner has filed a statutory appeal under Sections 51 and 52 of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act on 09.07.2015 before the first respondent. The said Appeal was filed along with an application for granting stay till the disposal of the Appeal without insisting for furnishing any security, since the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.27,18,581/- during field audit, which works out to 38.89%, out of the total amount of Rs.69,90,168/-, demanded by the second respondent. But the said Appeal and Stay petition were not taken up for hearing, instead, the second respondent took steps to recover the tax amount as demanded by him. Hence, the petitioner has filed WP(MD)No.12698 of 2015 on the file of this Court and pursuant to the direction given by this Court to the first respondent in the said Writ petition, Stay petition alone was taken up for hearing and the following order was passed:
9(i)There shall be a stay for a period of six months or till the disposal of case whichever is earlier from the date of issue of this order.
(ii)The petitioner shall pay a further payment of Rs.10,67,897/- on the disputed tax and file a security bond or bank guarantee for the balance of tax of Rs.32,03,690/- on or before 09.09.2015.
(iii)The bank guarantee shall be for a period of six months that is upto 09.02.2016 and the duplicate copy of bank guarantee attested by Assistant Commissioner, Mailamchanai-I, Assessment Circle, shall be filed in this office for notice.
and also various orders passed by this Court in other Writ Petitions and submitted that in all the cases the Writ Petitioners are directed to execute a personal bond instead of furnishing bank https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ guarantee. Therefore following the same, similar order could be passed.
3
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(AE)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
2.The Assistant Commissioner, (Commercial Taxes) Commercial Taxes Department, Mailam Chantahi I Circle, Tiruchirapalli – 620 020.
+1cc to Mr.AL.GANTHIMATHI, Advocate Sr.No.49427
+1cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No. 49477 mj
AA/04.09.2015/3p-5c
W.P.(MD)No.15331 of 2015
26.08.2015
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can modify the stay conditions imposed by the appellate authority regarding the amount of security and mode of furnishing bond.
Whether the petitioner should furnish a personal bond instead of a bank guarantee for granting stay pending appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s. Mangayarkarasi Mills Private Limited, Madurai vs. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner(CT), Madurai(south)Referred¶28
W.P.No.1521 of 2005, dated 8.3.2005 in the case of M/s. Mangayarkarasi Mills Private Limited, Madurai .vs. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner(CT), Madurai(sou
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s.Raja Enterprises
The Appellate Deputy Commissioner, (Commercial Taxes) Tiruchirapalli
The Assistant Commissioner, (Commercial Taxes)
R.Subbiah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
