IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BPiNGALORE DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 1998 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.SNGHAL WRIT PETITION NO. 10022 OF 1998 BETWEEN: RPG Trnsmjssion Limited (Formerly knowa as SJE(India)Ltd,,) an existing company under the Companies Act, 1956, with its registered office at 29 & 30, Community Commercial Center, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-57 and a branch, inter alia, at 358, 13 th ‘A’ M&ifl, Yelahanka New town, Bangalore—64 and a site office at Circuit House Road, Shimoga—577 201. and rep.herein by its Chief Resident Manager at Bangaiore Mr.K.3.Panicker. • .Petitioner. (By M/S King & Patridge, Adv.) AND: 1. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appels , I —2— Malnad Division, Ratnamma—Madhava Rao Road, shimoga—577 201. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Corrunercial Taxes (Assessments), Mamcos Building, Kote Post Office Rd., Shimoga-577 ..Respondents. (By Stat. S.Sujatha, HCGP) Writ Petition is eiled under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India with an affidavit praying to modify the R—1 order dated 11.3.98 vide Ann.D as to confer unconditional stay of the entire dnand till the apDeal be6ore the R—1 is disposed of.etc., bqrit petition is coming on the Further Orders this day, the court made the following: ORDER Appeal is pending before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. This appeal is filed against the order filed against the —3— against the order dated 11.3.1998 directing to make payment of 50% in cash and furnishing Bank Guarantee for the balance. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that C.S.T on the transactions in question has already been paid in the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Union Territory of Delhi and in view of the decision of the Apex Court in K,C.P.Ltd., Vs STATE OF M.P (1998) 108 STC 580, no tax is payable. Merits Cavi-ot of the case TI be considered at this stage and it is for the appellate authority to examine it. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the appeal could be argued by them on merit, Learned Government Pleader submitted that the state Cannot function simply on Bank Guarantees. I have considered over the matter. Norma 1 ly this Court in such a discretionary matter cannot interfere in the extraordinary jurisdiction. The appellate authority when the transaction is one and of similar nature either should have rejected the stay applic-tion or should have granted the entire stay, ‘.4 —4— Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case if the petitioner furnishes Bank Guarantee of nationalised bank within 21 days from today, the appellate authority will hear the appeal on merit and dispose of the same expeditiously, Preferably within a period of four months from the date of furnishing Bank Guarantee, The Validity of Bank Guarantee to be furnished shall not be less than six months, Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/-JUDGE. ( r,by; . L3z aisttat ssst :11tt )U 0 0k g I I