IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2011 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9456 of 2011(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S.ELITE BREADS PVT. LTD. ATHANI, THRISSUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY P.RAJAN, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (FINANCE). BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON, SMT.MEERA V.MENON, SRI.MAHESH V.MENON. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER 3RD CIRCLE, THRISSUR-680 001. 2. ASST. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-678 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.9456 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Ext.P6 letter issued by the 1st respondent refusing to accept Bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner is under challenge in this writ petition. Statutory appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P1 order of assessment is pending consideration and disposal before the 2nd respondent. Ext.P3 is the interim order of stay passed in that appeal, wherein the petitioner was directed to remit 1/3rd of the amount in dispute and to furnish 'sufficient security bond' for the balance amount. 2. It is evident from Ext.P4 that the petitioner had remitted 1/3rd amount. With respect to the balance portion the petitioner had furnished Bank Guarantee as evidenced from Ext.P5. Still the 1st respondent is taking a stand that there is no proper compliance of the interim order, because the petitioner has failed to execute the security bond. Hence the petitioner is seeking appropriate directions. W.P.(C).9456/11 -2- 3. I am of the opinion that the attitude adopted by the 1st respondent is totally misconceived. Considering the fact that the petitioner had furnished Bank Guarantee it is evident and clear that the balance amount is remaining well secured. Hence the technical argument now raised based on the wordings of the interim order, is quite unreasonable. An authority, who is expected to protect interest of the public exchequer is not expected to take such a technical stand, that too which is detrimental to the interest of the revenue. 4. Under the above mentioned circumstances Ext.P6 is hereby quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to accept Ext.P5 Bank Guarantee, if it is produced within a period of one week, and to keep in abeyance proceedings if any initiated for realisation of the amounts covered under the order of assessment, till the disposal of the appeal in question. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb