9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . JAICHANDREN J.- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the stay order, dated January 19, 2012, passed by the second respondent, in Sp. No. 6/11, in Ap. CST. No. 10/11. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the demand of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers, passed on June 27, 2011, and August 2, 2011, shows that the petitioner had not raised the issue relating to the clerical mistakes, said to have occurred in the Central sales tax return filed by the petitioner, before the assessing authority, either at the stage of the final assessment, or at the stage of the modification of the assessment. 4. The impugned order had also been passed on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, the petitioner had to file an appeal before the second respondent, against the assessment order of the third respondent, dated August 2, 2011. The petitioner had also filed a stay petition, before the second respondent, under section 31(5) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, praying for an order of stay against the collection of tax of ₹ 5,26,91,258, disputed in the appeal file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. Therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to pay a sum of ₹ 50 lakhs, in cash, as part of the balance amount, said to be payable by the petitioner, and to furnish a personal bond for the balance amount. On the petitioner complying with the said conditions, the second respondent may be directed to hear the appeal filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
