IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.04.2011
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
Writ Petition No.9418 of 2011
M/s.Curekraft Chemicals (I) Pvt. Ltd.,
Now Known as Proventus
Life Sciences Pvt., Ltd.,
Represented by its Director,
Flat No.2B & 2C, Second Floor, Ankur Manor,
No.182, Poonamallee High Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. .. Petitioner.
Versus
1.The Appellate Deputy
Commissioner (CT) III (FAC),
I Floor, Kuralagam Annex,
Chennai 108.
2.The Commercial Tax Officer (Addl.),
Now the Assistant Commissioner (CT),
Vepery Assessment Circle, Chennai. .. Respondents.
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of first respondent in S.P.No.9/11 in C.A.P.No.3/11 and to quash the impugned order, dated 14.03.2011 and direct the first respondent to grant an absolute stay of collection of the balance disputed tax and the entire penalty in respect of the assessment year CST 2000-01, without imposing any further condition of furnishing of security in the form of immovable property or bank guarantee pending disposal of the appeal on his files.
For petitioner : Mr.P.Rajkumar
For respondents : Mr.R.Mahadevan
Additional Government Pleader (T)
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.
3. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner has complied with the order of the Appellate Authority by paying the amount, as directed by it. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had also submitted that it would suffice if the order of the first respondent, dated 14.03.2011, made in S.P.No.9/11, in C.AP.No.3/11, is modified, permitting the petitioner to furnish a personal bond, with regard to the balance amount of tax, as well as the penalty, instead of furnishing a bank guarantee or immovable property security.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection for this Court passing such an order.
5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, the order of the first respondent, dated 14.03.2011, made in S.P.No.9/11, in C.AP.No.3/11, is modified, permitting the authorised representative of the petitioner firm to furnish a personal bond for the balance of amount of tax, as well as the penalty, instead of furnishing a bank guarantee or immovable property security, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.
cse
1. The Appellate DeputyCommissioner (CT) III (FAC),
I Floor, Kuralagam Annex,
Chennai 108.
2.The Commercial Tax Officer (Addl.),
Now the Assistant Commissioner (CT),
Vepery Assessment Circle,
Chennai