SHA MAGANLAL SUMEERMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus after calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in Aa. Thi. Mu. 717 of 1989 dated 16th February, 1989 and quash the same and also direct the 2nd respondent to accept the personal security given by one Champalal Premchand.

(2.) NOTICE of motion has been order by Sivasubramaniam, J., on 27th February, 1989.

(3.) AFTER hearing Ms. Nanda Rajagopalan, learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the contention put forth by her is right. When rule 31 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules permits an assessee to provide personal or property security, I do not see how the 2nd respondent can refuse even to look into the security bond given by the assessee pending the appeal before him. At any rate, since the appeal is pending before the 2nd respondent and the appeal relates to the assessment year 1987-88, I think it is just and proper in the interest of justice to direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of the main appeal itself within six weeks from today. Till then, there will be stay of collection of demand. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.