High Court Kerala High Court

M/S.Nortech Infonet (P)Ltd vs Sales Tax Officer on 28 November, 2007

Kerala High Court
M/S.Nortech Infonet (P)Ltd vs Sales Tax Officer on 28 November, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 35175 of 2007(K)


1. M/S.NORTECH INFONET (P)LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SALES TAX OFFICER, IIND CIRCLE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

3. INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :28/11/2007

 O R D E R
                                Antony Dominic, J.
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                          W.P.(C) No. 35175 of 2007
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
               Dated this the 28th day of November, 2007

                                     JUDGMENT

By Ext.P5 order of the appellate authority, stay was granted on

condition of remittance and furnishing security for the balance. It was

ordered that the conditions should be complied with within one month from

the date of receipt of copy of the order. Admittedly, the time frame could

not be complied with and the amount was remitted on 19-8-2007. It is

submitted that this payment has been accepted by the respondents.

2. What remains is compliance with the condition of security for the

balance amount. The petitioner submits that though they are willing to

comply with the conditions, the respondents are not accepting the security

furnished and therefore he could not comply with the time frame. Since

the petitioner offers their willingness to comply with the condition imposed

by the appellate authority, the petitioner should be permitted to do so.

3. Taking into account the submissions made above, ten days’ is

granted to the petitioner to furnish the security by way of bank guarantee

for the balance amount mentioned in Ext.P5, in which case the 1st

respondent shall accept the same and treat it as in compliance with Ext.P5.

WPC 35175/07 2

4. It is made clear that in view of the above there is no question of

continuing Exts.P6 and P7 notices.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Antony Dominic,
Judge.

mn.