V.M. Tanners vs The Secretary, Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal [Additional Bench] and The Commercial Tax Officer

G. Rajasuria, J.—These writ petitions have been filed to call for the records in M.T.P. No. 27/08 in M.T.A. No. 112/04, M.T.P. No.

26/08 in M.T.A. No. 106/04 and M.T.P. No. 28/08 in M.T.A. No. 280/03 dated 22.07.2008 on the file of the first respondent and quash the

same as illegal and direct the second respondent to accept the payment of 25% of disputed taxes as directed by the first respondent and also

accept the personal bond to be executed by the petitioner in lieu of security.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. V. Rajasekaran, learned Government Advocate (Tax), who took notice on behalf of

the respondents.

The grievance of the petitioner as aired by the learned Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the averments in the affidavits accompanying

the writ petitions, is to the effect that the petitioner preferred appeals as against the orders passed by the first appellate authority before the second

appellate authority viz., Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal; along with that stay petitions were filed seeking stay; thereupon the authority passed orders

to the effect that 25% of the tax, surcharge and additional sales tax shall be paid in each case on or before 29.08.2008; but owing to

circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner, the amounts could not be deposited; thereupon the said conditional stay granted automatically

stood vacated.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said orders, these writ petitions have been filed.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the averments in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition would submit that at

present the industrial unit is not functioning and it is dormant; the Managing Partner took ill and he could not muster strength to raise the amount

required to make such deposit and that only recently he could make deposit as per the said enactment.

The learned Government Advocate (Tax) would oppose tooth and nail the prayer of the petitioner.

Considering the pro-et-contra, what I could understand is that the specification of the date for deposit as 29.08.2008 should be taken only as a

clause in terrorum and it cannot be taken as a final one and the authority itself had the power to extend it. But without applying to the authority for

getting extension, straight away this writ jurisdiction has been invoked.

Be that as it may, taking into consideration that the stake involved in the appeals is huge, I am of the considered opinion that on costs being

imposed on the petitioner, the prayer of the petitioner could be considered. Accordingly, in each case, the petitioner shall pay within two weeks

from today, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) in addition to the amounts already deposited in compliance with the interim

conditional stay granted by the authority concerned and on such deposit the stay shall continue.

In respect of W.P. No. 11693 of 2008, the direction to furnish bank guarantee for 75% of tax, surcharge and additional sales tax, shall stand

replaced by the direction that the petitioner shall execute personal bonds.

In respect of W.P.Nos.11694 and 11695 of 2008, the condition to furnish bank guarantee for the remaining 75% of tax, surcharge and

additional sales tax and also for furnishing bank guarantee for 50% of the penalty amount shall stand replaced by the direction that the petitioner

shall execute personal bonds.

With the above said observations and directions, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs.