Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

In The High Court Of Judicature At ... vs The Commmercial Tax Officer

Madras High Court|16 March, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the 2nd respondent imposing certain conditions while granting the interim stay, pending disposal of the appeal. The petitioner filed the appeal before the 2nd respondent challenging the order of assessment passed by the assessing authority in respect of the assessment year 2012-2013. The Petitioner prayed for stay of the assessment order by filing an application before the Appellate Authority. The said application was ordered by the 2nd respondent on a condition that the petitioner should pay a sum of Rs.54,451/-, apart from Rs.8,151/- which is the admitted tax amount, already paid by the petitioner. The Appellate Authority further imposed a condition of furnishing a bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for Rs.1,25,205/- towards the balance of tax. Now, the present writ petition is filed challenging the imposition of such condition, which according to the petitioner, is onerous one.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that insofar as the first condition is concerned, namely payment of 50 % of the tax amount, the petitioner has already paid and therefore their only grievance is against the furnishing of the bank guarantee for the balance tax amount. Learned counsel also invited this Court's attention to the order passed in similar matters wherein this Court has directed the respective assessee to furnish personal bond instead of bank guarantee. The said order, made in the petitioner's case in W.P.No.16281 of 2015 dated 10.06.2015, is made available in the typed set of papers.
4. Learned Government Advocate has not disputed the above stated facts.
5. Considering the fact that the petitioner has already deposited 50% of the tax liability as assessed by the Assessing Officer and that he is also willing to furnish personal bond for the remaining tax amount, the order impugned in this writ petition is modified to the effect that the petitioner, instead of furnishing bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.1,25,205/-, is permitted to furnish personal bond for the above said sum before the Assessing Officer. In all other aspects, the impugned order stands. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
16.03.2017 Speaking/Non Speaking Index : Yes/No vsi K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J.
vsi To
1. The Commmercial Tax Officer, Gummidippondi Assessment Circle, No 38, GNT Road, II Floor, Gummidipoondi 601 201
2. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), III Floor Commercial Taxes Annexe Building, Grams Road, Chennai - 600 006.
W.P.No.6390 of 2017 16.03.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

In The High Court Of Judicature At ... vs The Commmercial Tax Officer

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
16 March, 2017