IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 26TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27523 of 2010(M) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S. PERIYAR CEMENTS (P) LTD., NIDA, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY SYJU JOSE, DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON, SMT.MEERA V.MENON, SRI.MAHESH V.MENON. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.VI, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 2. KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, PALAKKAD. 4. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.P. PRADEEP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) 27523 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an assessee to sales tax on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, the 4th respondent. As per Ext.P1 a penalty to the tune of Rs.7,60,000/- was imposed on the petitioner under Section 67 of the Value Added Tax Act (VAT Act) by the first respondent for the year 2006-07. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the matter was taken up in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner(Appeals). However, the same was rejected as per Ext.P2 order. Second Appeal viz., Ext.P3 preferred against the same before the second respondent is pending. Admittedly, to honour the order of conditional stay passed in the first appeal the petitioner has remitted an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. In the Second Appeal Appellate Tribunal granted stay against the recovery of the balance amount due as per Ext.P1 with a condition requiring the petitioner to furnish security for the balance amount within one month. When the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent to execute a bond, in terms of the said order of stay the petitioner was informed that only bond with surety WPC No.25937/2010 2 would be accepted. In the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent has now initiated recovery steps and issued notice in Form No. 6 under the Revenue Recovery Act. 2. Evidently, in the second appeal the second respondent has passed Ext.P4 order. The question is whether the security bond, if furnished by the petitioner in Form No. 6 could be accepted without insisting for sureties. This Court in similar matters issued orders directing the concerned authority to accept security bond if furnished in form No.6 without insisting for sureties. I think such a relief can be granted in this Writ Petition as well. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 4th respondent to accept the security bond if furnished by the petitioner in Form No. 6 without insisting for sureties towards compliance with the order of stay passed by the second respondent. This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE jma //true copy// P.A to Judge