ORDER V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN - The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the revisional authority directing the petitioner to pay the entire disputed tax as a pre-condition for entertaining the revision. Heard Mr. C. Rekha Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R. Mahadevan Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), takes notice for the respondents. As against the order of assessment dated December 12, 2008, passed under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, the petitioner filed a revision petition on January 12, 2009, before the first respondent along with an application for stay. But the first respondent has informed the petitioner by the impugned order dated February 3, 2009 that unless entire disputed tax is paid, under section 54(4) of the Act, the revision petition will not be entertained. It is against the said order that the petitioner is before this court. Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 enables a person objecting to an order in respect of which an appeal is not provided under section 51 or 52, to file a revision before the first respondent. Section 54(2) prescribes that a revision petition should be in the prescribed format and verified in a prescribed manner. Section 54(3) enables the revisional authority to call for and examine the order under revision and pass such orders after making such enquiry. Section 54(4) reads as follows : "Notwithstanding that an application has been preferred under sub-section (1), the tax, fee or other amount shall be paid in accordance with the order or proceeding against which the application has been preferred : Provided that the Deputy Commissioner may in his discretion give such directions as he thinks fit, in regard to the payment of such tax, fee or other amount before the disposal of revision, if the applicant furnishes sufficient security to his satisfaction in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed." While the first respondent has taken note of the substantive provision, the first respondent has not taken note of the proviso to section 54(4). In other words the payment of disputed tax is not made a pre-condition under section 54(4). There is a limited discretion vested in the first respondent which he is supposed to exercise in a manner known to law. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. In other words the payment of disputed tax is not made a pre-condition under section 54(4). There is a limited discretion vested in the first respondent which he is supposed to exercise in a manner known to law. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for a fresh consideration. The first respondent shall consider the stay petition on the merits and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.