The petitioner has challenged Ext.P1 order passed by the first respondent/Commercial Tax Officer by filing Ext.P2 appeal along with petition for stay. After considering the I.A.. for stay, Ext.P3 order was passed directing the petitioner to satisfy 30% of the disputed liability and to furnish adequate security to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned to have the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the appeal. It is stated that the petitioner has satisfied the condition imposed vide Ext.P3 order , as borne by Ext.P4 receipt. Alleging that the petitioner has not furnished solvent sureties, the respondents are again proceeding against the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.
2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that 'security' to be furnished in accordance with law is by way of 'solvent sureties'. It is also stated that, it was very difficult for the Department to have served notice/orders upon the petitioner, as there was absolutely no co-
W.P.(C)No.30964 OF 2014 2 operation from the part of the petitioner, who was seeking to evade the process.
3. After hearing both the sides, the petitioner is directed to execute a simple bond for the balance amount along with simple bond of two other registered dealers, upon which the petitioner shall continue to have the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the appeal.
The writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition for further steps.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk