High CourtsSingle Bench(1989) 01 MAD CK 0060

Geranco Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. vs Commercial Tax Officer, Vadapalani Assessment Circle, Madras

Madras High Court · Decided on 20 January 1989 · Citation: (1989) 74 STC 240

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 900 of 1989

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 386 words

Sivasubramaniam, J.—Mr. M. S. Rajasekaran, Government Advocate (Taxes), takes notice for the respondent.

2.

The writ petition is for the following relief :

...... to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondent to accept the bank guarantee produced

by the petitioner and acknowledge receipt of the same to enable the petitioner to approach the appellate authority for grant of stay, pending

disposal of the appeal before the appellate authority .......

3.

According to the petitioner, against the order of assessment, he preferred an appeal and filed an application for stay before the appellate

authority. In order to seek an order of stay, he obtained a bank guarantee from the Indian Bank, Harbour Branch, Madras, for a sum of Rs.

36,672.35 as a security for the grant of stay. As per the procedure, the bank guarantee together with the security bond have to be produced

before the assessing authority for verification before the same is filed before the appellate authority. Accordingly, he produced the security bond

along with the bank guarantee bond before the assessing authority. However, he refused to receive the bank guarantee on the ground that he has

already attached the bank account of the petitioner. I find that the course adopted by the respondent is wholly unwarranted and that the attachment

to bank account has nothing to do with the receipt of the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner along with the security bond. The respondent is

expected to merely acknowledge receipt of the same so that necessary orders can be passed by the appellate authority. It is not the case where

the security offered is not acceptable or something like that. On a consideration of the entire facts, I find that the petitioner is justified in seeking the

relief asked for in this writ petition.

4.

In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to receive the bank guarantee produced by the petitioner and

acknowledge receipt of the same to enable the petitioner to approach the appellate authority for grant of stay, pending disposal of the appeal. In so

far as the operation of the bank account is concerned, it will depend upon the interim orders to be passed by the appellate authority. No costs.

5.

Writ petition allowed.