COMPUTER GRAPHICS LTD Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT is under challenge in this writ petition is Exts.P5 and P7. By Ext.P5, stay was granted by the Appellate Tribunal on condition that the petitioner remits `15,000 and furnish security for the balance amount. According to the petitioner, in compliance with Ext.P5, payment was made and towards security, Ext.P6 bond without sureties was furnished, which was rejected by Ext.P7. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed.

(2.) A reading of Ext.P7 shows that according to the 1st respondent, the bond furnished by the petitioner does not satisfy the requirements of the KVAT Act and the Rules and it was therefore that the same was rejected. When the Appellate Tribunal directed that the petitioner shall furnish security to the satisfaction of the 1st respondent, that security should be one furnished in compliance with the statutory provisions. Admittedly, Ext.P6 bond cannot be said to be one which satisfies the requirements of law. In such a situation, Ext.P7 cannot be said to be illegal.