Judgment : Sri Shivayogiswamy, learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondents and file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today. 2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for modification of the interim order dated 18-1-2010 passed in Appeal No.18 (Tax)/2009-10 as at Annexure-C. 3. The petitioner has filed the said appeal in respect of arrears of tax demanded from the petitioner. The fact that a sum of Rs.79,200/- is due to be paid by the petitioner is not in dispute. However, the petitioner has put forth certain submission before this Court regarding the financial stringency which has led the petitioner to such a situation. It is contended that the petitioner who is a lady is suffering serious financial stringency and in fact she had found it difficult even to restore the vehicle to its running condition and as such the amount which was liable to be paid as tax had been expended for the vehicle repairs. It is therefore contended that even though an appeal has been filed, leave was sought to pay the amount in 10 instalments and since the respondent has not granted such benefit, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The learned Government Advocate would however oppose the prayer made in the petition. It is contended that the tax payable in a liability to be paid to the State in advance. As such the petitioner cannot now contended that the said amount could not be paid in time. Therefore, it is contended that the question of payment in instalment would not arise. 5. Having heard the respective learned Counsel, with regard to the liability to pay the said amount, the same is not in dispute. The only question is as to whether the petitioner should be permitted indulgence to pay the amount in instalments. It is no doubt true that the position of law is clear that when the amount by way of tax is due, it is to be paid and if not paid, the authorities would have the right to recover the same in accordance with law. At the said time, this Court cannot also loose sight of the fact that this Court should also exercise its equity jurisdiction in deserving cases. 6. At the said time, this Court cannot also loose sight of the fact that this Court should also exercise its equity jurisdiction in deserving cases. 6. In the instant case, it is seen that the petitioner who is a lady has put forth certain difficulties which requires to be considered by this Court without making it as a precedence for any other case. Therefore, keeping all aspects in view, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is to be permitted to pay the amount in the following manner. Out of the total amount of Rs.79,200/-, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- within three weeks from the date of this order. The balance of Rs.54,200/- shall be paid in five equal monthly instalments commencing from the month of June 2010 and the same shall be paid on before the 5th of every succeeding month. Thereafter, if there is any default even for a single month, the respondents would be entitled to recover the entire amount due as on such day in one lumpsum. Further the petitioner is directed not to sell the vehicle or part possession in any other manner until the said amount is cleared by the petitioner. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.