IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10371 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.NAIR COAL SERVICES LTD., MUNICIPAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, PALAKKAD, HAVING HEAD OFFICE AT SYRIA BHAVAN, NAIR SONS, RAMNAGAR, NAGPUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER, U.KALADHARAN. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SMT.K.HYMAVATHY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.IV, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, IIND CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.( C) No. 10371 of 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 26th March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of the stipulation contained in Ext.P3 issued by the third respondent, whereby the petitioner has been directed to furnish security in Form 6A in conformity with Rule 19(2) and 85 of KVAT Rules 2. The sequence of events shows that the petitioner being aggrieved of penalty orders passed by the first respondent had filed statutory appeals along with Interlocutory Applications for stay. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court in W.P(C) No.6540 of 2010, as per Ext. P2 judgment, the condition imposed by the appellate authority while passing interim roder in I.A. for stay, as modified by this Court was satisfied by the petitioner by remitting a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs and furnishing Ext. P4 security bond , which however was rejected by the third respondent vide Ext. P3, holding that the 'security bond' had to be furnished in 'Form 6A', which hence forms the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition. W.P.( C) No. 10371 of 2010 2 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submitted that the stipulation imposed by the third respondent is very much in conformity with the statutory requirements; more so, when Ext. P4 bond has been executed by the petitioner alone and that no sureties are there. Going by the statutory prescriptions, Rule 19(2) contemplates different ways of providing 'security deposit' as prescribed under clauses (a) to (h). As per clause (d) of Rule 19(2), the security or additional security shall be furnished by executing a security bond for such amount in 'Form No.6' with two sureties, solvent enough for the amount assured and acceptable to the said authority. True, the liability to satisfy the bond under Rule 19 is under a different circumstance, particularly in connection with the steps for registration and necessity to provide security deposit or additional security deposit, as the case may be; whereas the position under Rule 85 stands on a different pedestal. It appears that the third respondent was rather concerned only with 'Form 6A', as stipulated in Rule 85, though the very same Rule clearly refers to any of the securities as provided under W.P.( C) No. 10371 of 2010 3 Rule 19(2) as well. The petitioner is very much entitled to furnish 'security' under Rule 19 (2) (d), i.e. by providing security bond in 'Form 6', with two solvent sureties. The stipulation contained in Ext.P3, insisting that the petitioner has to satisfy the security in 'Form 6A' itself, is not correct or sustainable. 3. Accordingly, the stipulation in Ext. P3 is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to furnish the security in 'Form 6' with two solvent sureties as contemplated under Rule 19(2)(d), so as to avail the benefit of the interim stay and this shall be satisfied within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk