Allowed

M/S Murugan and Co., v. the Appellate Deputy

Madras HC13 Feb 2017WP(MD)/1126/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking to relax the condition imposed by a tax appellate authority requiring a bank guarantee. The court held that, following precedent, a personal bond from the petitioner is acceptable as an alternative to the bank guarantee as security for the disputed penalty amount, directing the authority to accept it within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to execute a personal bond for the penalty amount of Rs. 2,52,993 within two weeks; 2nd respondent directed to accept the bond; failure results in automatic restoration of the orig

M/S Murugan and Co., Vs the Appellate Deputy — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 24.01.2017

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.1126 of 2017

¶7

M/s. Murugan and Co., Represented by its Partner A.Kathirvel, No.6A, Thiruvika Road, Karur.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

vs.

¶10

The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Trichy.

¶11

The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Karur (South) Assessment Circle, Karur.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in S.P.No.253/2016 in VAT AP No.297/2016 dated 14.12.2016 on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same as illegal and direct the 2^nd respondent to accept the personal bond to be executed by the petitioner in lieu of security.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Karunakar For Respondents : Mr.R.Karthikeyan Additional Government Pleader

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in S.P.No.253/2016 in VAT AP No.297/2016 dated 14.12.2016 on the file of the 1^st respondent, quash the same and consequently, direct the 2^nd respondent to accept the personal bond to be executed by the petitioner in lieu of security.

¶17

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that for the penalty amount of Rs.2,52,993/- arrived at by

¶19

¶20

the respondents, the petitioner preferred appeal and the appellate authority while granting stay, directed the petitioner firm to file a Security Bond or Bank Guarantee for the penalty amount. However, the petitioner firm is not in a position to provide the same. He would further submit that the amount demanded by the respondents is disputed one, which has to be decided by the authority concerned. Therefore, he seeks modification of the order of the appellate authority.

¶21

4.The learned Additional Government Pleader would only contend that even as per the decision of the Supreme Court unless safeguard in respect of payment in question is made, the revenue of the Government will be at stake. Therefore, the order of the appellate authority holds good.

¶22

5.In a similar occasion, the Division Bench of this Court made in W.A(MD)No.194 of 2005, dated 13.07.2006, has held as follows:-

¶23

“2.When the appellant preferred a statutory appeal before the first respondent, as a condition precedent for filing an appeal, the appellant deposited 25% of the tax assessed. It is stated that as per the interim orders of the first respondent, the appellant has also paid another 20% of the assessed tax which is under challenge before the first respondent.

¶24

In such circumstances, we feel that the interim order of stay granted by the first respondent can be directed to be continued subject to the appellant furnishing a personal bond for the remaining tax amount as well as penalty.

¶25

Subject to such modification, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of. The order of the learned Single Judge is also modified to the above extent. Such personal bond shall be furnished by the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

¶26

In view of the earlier order and also considering the facts and circumstances of the cases, this court modifies the conditions imposed by the appellate authority only insofar as to the grant of Bank Guarantee:-

¶27

(i) For the penalty amount of Rs.2,52,993/-, the petitioner firm, shall execute a personal bond with the appellate authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii) In case, if the petitioner firm fails to furnish the personal bond within the abovesaid time limit,

¶29

¶30

this modification granted by this Court shall stand cancelled without any reference to this Court and the orders of the appellate authority will get automatically restored.

¶31

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.

¶32

Assistant Registrar(CS I)

¶33

/True copy/

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

¶36

The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Trichy.

¶37

The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Karur (South) Assessment Circle, Karur.

¶38

+1cc to M/s.S.Karunakar, Advocate SR.No.3841 +1cc to special Government Pleader sR.No.4149

¶39

nbi

¶40

sm:BS:07/02/2017:3P/5C

¶41

W.P(MD)No.1126 of 2017 24.01.2017 3/5

¶42

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

M/S Murugan and Co., v. the Appellate Deputy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Murugan and Co., 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Managing Director Vs Lakshmi

G. Subramani Reddy Vs M.A. Malick

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs E.Jayakumar

S.T. Rengarajan Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

A.Rajeswari, Vs the Disrtict Collector

M.Roselet, Vs the Managing Director