By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, APRIL 24, 2018: THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HIGH COURT IS - Whether furnishing of bank guarantee should be mandated upon taxpayers for granting interim stay, when three fourth of the disputed tax has already been remitted. NO IS THE VERDICT.

Facts of the case:

The Assessee dealer had preferred present petition challenging the direction passed by Dy CCT while granting interim stay, for furnishing of bank guarantee or security deposit for the remaining disputed tax and penalty and the bank guarantee to be kept alive for a period of six months.

High Court held that,

++ it is seen that when the Appeal Petition was entertained, 75% of the disputed tax has already been remitted by the assessee. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the interest of the Revenue has been sufficiently safeguarded and to safeguard further interest of the Revenue, the assessee can be directed to file a bond for the remaining tax and penalty. In the result, the order passed by Dy CCT is modified to the effect that the assessee shall execute a personal bond for the balance tax and penalty for the respective A.Y, in lieu of furnishing bank guarantee.

(See 2018-TIOL-759-HC-MAD-VAT)