IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18255 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ K.J. JOY, SIGN ERA, NEAR KANIYAMPUZHA BRIDGE, EROOR P.O. VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC), O/O THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 015. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AA), O/O THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (AA) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM PIN 682 025 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM PIN 682 015. 4. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM AT KAKKANAD, KOCHI 682 031. 5. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.18255 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this court challenging Exts.P9 and P10 in so far as it relate to furnishing of 60% of balance disputed tax. He seeks a direction to accept Exts.P13 and P13(a) bonds towards security. Exts.P9 and P10 are orders passed by the appellate authority in appeals filed by the petitioner against the assessment orders for the years 2005-2006 and 2007-2008. By the orders the appellate authority has granted stay on condition that the petitioner remits 40% of the balance amount due and furnishes security for the balance to the satisfaction of the assessing authority. Petitioner refers to Exts.P13 and P13(a) security bonds. Complaint of the petitioner is that though they were accepted by the second respondent, they were subsequently returned on the ground that he is not satisfied with the bonds furnished as no solvency certificates of the sureties are enclosed. The second respondent has advised the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee. It is the complaint of the petitioner that this refusal lands the petitioner in the lurch of making payment of 100% of the disputed tax. The petitioner is stated to be facing very stringent financial position, especially after the payment of Rs.2,64,084/- towards tax. Petitioner has WPC.18255/2008. 2 also relied on Ext.P14 bank certificate showing the overdraft position of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that this is a case where the petitioner has made out a good case for interference. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.K.U.Vijayan and the learned Government Pleader. 3. I do not think that it is possible for me to say in Article 226 of the Constitution that this is a case where the authority has acted illegally in not accepting the security bonds, Exts.P13 and P13(a) in the absence of solvency certificates. The very purport of security bond would lose its effectiveness in the absence of solvency certificate. In such circumstances, while declining to interfere in the matter, the petitioner is granted one month from today to comply with the conditions in Exts.P9 and P10. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb