IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15039 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.PARK RESIDENCY PVT.LTD., NEAR CIVIL STATION ROAD, SEAPORT AIRPORT ROAD, KAKKANAD, COCHIN. REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR.SUNOJ KURIAN. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SMT.C.K.SHERIN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB), ERNAKULAM, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)-III, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (REVENUE RECOVERY) ERNAKULAM AT KAKKANAD, KANAYANNOOR TALUK. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 15039 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 18th May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The challenge in the Writ Petition is with regard to sustainability of the condition imposed for availing the benefit of interim stay granted by the second respondent vide Ext.P3. 2. The sequence of events shows that, being aggrieved of Ext.P1 order imposing penalty, the petitioner has preferred Ext. P2 appeal along with Ext.P2(a) petition for stay. After considering the merits of the case, the second respondent granted Ext. P3 order of stay, directing the petitioner to satisfy 25% of the liability and to furnish sufficient security bond for the balance amount before the assessing authority, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay. The petitioner deposited 25% of the liability and also furnished security bond, together with Encumbrance-free Certificate and Solvency certificate, as borne by Ext. P5. However, the first respondent has issued Ext. P6, insisting that W.P.(C) No. 15039 OF 2010 2 the petitioner has to satisfy the Bond in 'Form 6A', duly registered, along with such other requirements as specified therein. 3. Rule 19(2) of the KVAT Rules provides for requirements of execution of Bond , the manner in which security/additional security is to be furnished, which is extracted below: “19(2) The security or additional security may be furnished by the dealer in any of the following ways namely:- (a) by depositing as security in the Government Treasury the amount fixed by the said authority and pledging the pass book to and depositing it with the said authority; or (b) by depositing with the said authority Government securities for the amount fixed by the said authority; or © by depositing security amount in the Post Office Savings Bank and pledging the pass book to and depositing it with the said authority; or (d) 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; or W.P.(C) No. 15039 OF 2010 3 (e) by a bond prescribed under Rule 85 for the amount fixed by the said authority in Form No.6A, duly registered, along with title, possession and valuation certificates obtained from the Tahsildar concerned and the value of property shall not be lower than the amount shown in bond; or (f) by means of a bank guarantee in form No.6C, from a nationalised or scheduled bank or of any bank authorised under Rule 26 or of any branch thereof located in the State; or (g) by depositing the amount in the National Savings Certificate and pledging the same to and depositing it with the said authority; or (h) by depositing with the said authority the title deeds relating to any property owned by the assessee sufficient to cover the amount of security demanded by such authority.” In the above circumstance, the security bond could be furnished in any of the above forms as prescribed, subject to the satisfaction of the condition as stipulated. 4. It is brought to the notice of this Court, that satisfaction of the condition by the petitioner is very much in conformity with the relevant provisions of law and there is no W.P.(C) No. 15039 OF 2010 4 rationale on the part of the first respondent for having insisted to have security bond in Form 6A itself and that too 'duly registered'. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that Ext.P2 appeal itself stands posted on 27.05.2010 for final hearing. 5. Taking note of the facts and circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider Ext. P2 appeal and pass final orders on merits, in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment . It is also made clear that the petitioner will continue to have the benefit of interim stay, till the proceedings are finalised as above. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk