Petitioner is aggrieved by the conditional order passed in the appeal filed for the assessment year 2008-09. The first Appellate Authority had directed payment of 40% of the demand along with furnishing security with solvent sureties, as provided in the statute, for stay of demand. It is contended that the petitioner has paid 40% of the amount and hence he may be absolved from furnishing solvent sureties especially since he is a registered dealer and that he is unable to furnish such sureties. 2. The learned Government Pleader however, on instructions, submits that the petitioner, against the very same order, was before this Court in a writ petition wherein this Court WP(C).14165/14 2 modified the order to 1/3rd of the amounts demanded and furnishing of security for the balance amounts. In such circumstances, definitely, the petitioner cannot assail the order again before this Court. If the petitioner has paid 40%; in excess of the modification granted by this Court, then, of course, the bond should be insisted only for the balance amounts, ie, 60% of the demand. However, the petitioner is given a month's time to provide sufficient security.
Writ petition disposed of.
Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge Mrcs //True Copy//