2017 (12) TMI 1584

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed was relating to the default made between the period May and September, 2013 - Held that:- When a security bond is executed in form No.6, there is no stipulation either in the Rule or in the form that the bond would apply only to the default occasioned in future. The liability though was prior to the execution of the bond by the petitioners, remained due even after the bond was executed. In such .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assed, notice to the second respondent is dispensed with. 2. The first respondent, who is the Assessing Officer of the second respondent, demanded additional security under Rule 19 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules, 2005. The appellants/petitioners have executed the security bond in form No.6 before the first respondent agreeing to satisfy any liability of the second respondent under the KVAT .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ability being limited to the extent of ₹ 15,00,000/-, there cannot be any contention taken of the prior liability being not covered under the security bond. We have also gone through Rule 19 of the KVAT Rules, which indicates that the execution of a security bond in form No.6 is one of the modes by which the security or additional security demanded by the Assessing Officer can be satisfied b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X