R M APPAVU CHETTIAR SONS 156 158 SOUTH AVANI MOOLA STREET MADURAI 625001 Vs. APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES MADURAI SOUTH MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has suffered orders of regular assessment for the three years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82. As against them, it has preferred appeals and pending the appeals, stay was sought for. It is further stated that bank guarantee for the entire disputed tax in respect of all the three years have been furnished. By the impugned orders, the first respondent has chosen to direct only payment of the tax dues in instalments.

(2.) Mr. Lokapriya, Additional Government Pleader, represents the respondents. The prayer in each of the three writ petitions is for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order, dated 25.6.85 of the first respondent and further to direct him to grant absolute stay of collection of sales tax. In support of this prayer, Mr. R.Venkataraman, learned Counsel for the petitioner, draws my attention to the pronouncement of Natarajan, 3., in Doiton Prints Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1985) 58 S.T.C. 137. When the bank guarantees are there, they will provide ample safeguard for the revenue. In the said circumstances, to call upon the petitioner to pay the very disputed tax is not only harsh but also not a judicial and a proper exercise of the power of discretion reserved for the authority like the first respondent under the proviso to section 31(5) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The present impugned orders only disclose a mechanical exercise of power without resorting to the appropriate consideration on the question of stay. This obliges me to interfere in writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, I direct that the bank guarantees already furnished by the petitioner shall hold good provided they are kept alive during the pendence of the appeals in question before the first respondent and the impugned orders are hereby quashed. No costs.

(3.) In spite of the pronouncement of this Court referred to above, I find that the authorities like the first respondent resort to passing such mechanical orders and this constrains parties like the petitioner to approach this Court in writ jurisdiction. It is high time that the highest in the hierarchy of the authorities look into the matter and give appropriate instructions to the concerned to adhere to the principles enunciated by this Court so as to avoid parties rushing to this Court for redress and relief.