IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17007 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S MAC & MEGHA AGRO EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, T.B. COMPLEX, T.B. ROAD, PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.P. MANIKANDAKUMAR. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, FIRST CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, ( REVENUE RECOVERY), PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 17007 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 25th June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenging Exts P1 and P2 assessment orders passed by the second respondent, the petitioner preferred Exts. P4 and P5 appeals along with petitions for stay and for early hearing, before the first respondent. After considering the facts and figures, the appellate authority passed Ext. P6 order granting interim stay on condition that the petitioner paid 30% of the balance demand stated as due; simultaneously furnishing a bond, as prescribed, in respect of the balance amount . The case of the petitioner is that eventhough 30% of the due amount as ordered vide Ext. P6 has been satisfied and a bond has also been furnished, the second respondent has rejected the same as not acceptable, despite the explanation offered in response to Ext.P10 show cause notice, leading to Ext. P11 order, giving necessary instructions to the revenue authorities to expedite the recovery steps. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the bond furnished by the W.P.(C) No. 17007 OF 2009 2 petitioner was not at all in the proper form, which is evident from Ext. P9 itself, where even the name of the sureties have not been mentioned. It is pointed out with specific reference to the statement filed in this regard that eventhough the petitioner was given opportunity to cure the defects by returning the bond, it was simply sent back by the petitioner without curing the same, under which circumstances, there was no other alternative for the second respondent but to reject the same and to proceed with further steps. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the defect in the bond was only due to an inadvertent mistake and that the bond was returned under the bonafide impression that all the relevant mistakes stood cured. It is further pointed out that the petitioner was ready and willing to comply with the directions given vide Ext. P6, so as to avail the benefit of stay and that the attitude and understanding of the petitioner can never be regarded as recalcitrant in any manner. 4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that it will only be fit and proper to have the appeal finalised by the first W.P.(C) No. 17007 OF 2009 3 respondent, also enabling the petitioner to avail the benefit of interim stay, on condition that the petitioner cures the defect within a further period of ten days to the satisfaction of the second respondent. If proper bond, as contemplated under the relevant provisions of Act, is furnished as above, it will be treated as filed within time, under which circumstances, Ext. P11 proceedings issued by the second respondent will not be of any consequences. On such an event, the first respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P4 and P5 appeals, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk