MC 1554/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR RS GARG HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H BARUAH Heard Mr UK Nair, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr KN Choudhury, learned Addl Advocate General for the respondents. Placing reliance upon an order dated 28-1-2009 passed in WP(C) No.243/20 09 (Tata Sky Ltd vs. The State of Assam & Ors) it was contended that the respond ents be restrained from taking any coercive measure subject to the petitioner fu rnishing bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the revenue, learned counsel for the State, however, submitted that on 28-1-2009 when the order was passed in WP( C) No.243/2009 the Rules were not brought into force but subsequent to that on 1 9-2-2009 the Rules were brought into force which even provide the process of ass essment and the form required for the assessment. His submission is that in view of the changed circumstances the order dated 28-1-2009 cannot provide any found ation in favour of the petitioners to say that subject to bank guarantee the int erim order be granted in favour of the petitioners. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the consider ed opinion that the petitioners should be asked to deposit the amount as claimed by the department. If the said deposit is made within 10 days from today no coe rcive action would be taken by the respondents. It is, however, made clear that the said deposit shall be subject to the outcome of this writ petition with a fu rther direction that in case the petition is allowed and the petitioners are hel d entitled to refund of the money, then within a period of 7 days from the date of the judgment the amount so deposited would be returned by the State to the as sessee/petitioners. The Misc Case stands disposed of.