Partly allowed

M/s.Migatronic India Pvt. v. The Appellate Deputy

Madras HC6 Dec 2017WP/31565/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee for disputed tax. The court directed the petitioner to execute a personal bond instead of the bank guarantee within two weeks, keeping other aspects of the stay order unaltered.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to execute a personal bond for the balance of 50% of disputed tax in lieu of bank guarantee within two weeks; impugned order otherwise unaltered.

M/s.Migatronic India Pvt. Vs The Appellate Deputy — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.12.2017

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.31565 OF 2017 & WMP.NO.34687 OF 2017

¶6

M/s.Migatronic India Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Head - Finance & Commercial

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

1.The Appellate Deputy Commissioner 3^rd Floor, C7, Building Annexe (ST) East, (FAC), No.1, Greams Road, Chennai-6.

¶9

2.The Commercial Tax Officer, Alandur Assessment Circle, Chennai-16. ...Respondents

¶10

PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in SP.No.96/2017 in APC.No.37/2017, quash the impugned order dated 07.11.2017 and further direct the first respondent to grant an absolute stay of collection of the balance of disputed tax in respect of the assessment year CST 2015-16 without imposing any further condition of furnishing of security in the form of immovable property or bank guarantee pending disposal of the appeal on his files.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Sivasubramanian For Respondents : Mr.K.Venkatesh, GA

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents. Heard both. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶14

The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on the file of the second respondent. The petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent against the order of assessment passed by the second respondent. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged

¶15

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

¶16

the order passed by the first respondent while granting an order of stay. By the impugned order, the first respondent directed the petitioner to pay another 25% of the disputed tax and to furnish bank guarantee for the balance of tax within a time frame. It is stated that the petitioner paid another 25% of the disputed tax on 27.11.2017 as per the order dated 07.11.2017. The petitioner is aggrieved by the condition of furnishing bank guarantee for the balance of 50% of the disputed tax.

¶17

The learned Additional Government Pleader submits that the petitioner may be permitted to execute personal bond instead of bank guarantee as directed by the first respondent.

¶18

Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to execute a personal bond for the balance of 50% of the disputed tax, in lieu of bank guarantee, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In all other aspects, the impugned order passed by the first respondent will remain unaltered. No costs. Consequently, the above WMP is closed.

¶19

s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-V)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) East, (FAC),
3 rd Floor, C7, Building Annexe No.1, Greams Road,
Chennai-6.
2.The Commercial Tax Officer, Alandur Assessment Circle,
Chennai-16.

¶20

+1 CC to Spl. Govt. Pleader sr 87502. +1 CC to Mr.P. Rajkumar, Advocate sr 86234. WP.No.31565 of 2017& WMP.No.34687 of 2017 PVS(CO) SP(26/12/2017)

¶21

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

M/s.Migatronic India Pvt. v. The Appellate Deputy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Migatronic India Pvt. 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

M/s.Sri Kamalaganapathy Vs The Additional Director

Mr.Praveen Kumar, Vs The Commissioner of Income

M/s.Kishore Industries Vs The State of Tamilnadu

M/s.Jeevan Park, Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Rain Industries Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

M/s.Menally Bharath Vs The Commercial Tax Officer