1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.1779 of 2011 N.Shanmugasundaram : Petitioner Vs. The Deputy Commissioner (Appellate Authority) Commercial Taxes, Virudhunagar. : Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to accept the petitioner's personal surety bond dated 04.10.2010 to the effect of payment of disputed tax and further direct the respondent to dispose of the petitioner's appeal against the revised assessment order dated 31.08.2010 in TIN 33595441661 passed under section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 by the Commercial Tax Officer, Ramanathapuram. For Petitioner : Mr.R.R.Thamothar Raj For Respondent : Mr.V.Rajasekaran Special Government Pleader ******** ORDER ****** The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to accept personal surety bond and dispose of his statutory appeal filed against the assessment order dated 31.08.2010. 2. The petitioner is the Proprietor of Sri.Senthil Murugan Timbers at Velipattinam in the district of Ramanathapuram. The Commercial Tax Officer, Ramanathapuram passed an order of revised assessment on 31.08.2010 for the year 2008-2009. The said order was challenged before the respondent under Sections 51 and 52 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 . The petitioner, instead of depositing 25% of the disputed tax, executed a personal bond. Therefore, the appeal was returned. This made the petitioner to file the Writ Petition for the purpose of accepting the personal bond instead of making statutory deposit. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The requirement regarding deposit of 25% of the disputed tax is a condition precedent for filing appeal. There is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 to dispense with the statutory deposit. The petitioner has filed the appeal without making the statutory deposit. Therefore, it was rightly returned by the respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to indicate any of the statutory provisions enabling this Court to waive the statutory deposit. The appeal is a creature of the Statute. Therefore, anybody who wants to file an appeal should comply with the mandatory conditions. 6. The question of waiver of statutory deposit does not arise in a matter like this. The respondent cannot number the appeal without the statutory deposit. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent was not justified in returning the appeal. In any case, the order of return is not before this Court. The prayer is to issue a Writ of Mandamus. There is no statutory right enabling the petitioner to insist that his appeal should be numbered without making the statutory deposit. Similarly, there is no corresponding duty on the part of the respondent to accept the appeal without the statutory deposit. Therefore, I am of the view that no Mandamus as prayed for by the petitioner could be issued. 7. In the upshot, I dismiss the Writ Petition. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Deputy Commissioner (Appellate Authority) Commercial Taxes, Virudhunagar. +1 CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER S.R NO. 8829 Order made in W.P.(MD)No.1779 of 2011 15.02.2011 SML PAM 10.03.2011/3C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/