Judgment :- 1. 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 19.1.2012, 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 tax had arisen only due to the clerical errors in the Central Sales Tax return filed by the petitioner, for the months of May and August of the year, 2008, and for the month of March, 2009, relating to the assessment year 2008-2009, wherein, the figure for the goods stock transferred from outside the State was shown as goods transferred outside Tamilnadu. 3. By the impugned order passed by the second respondent, the petitioner has been directed to make a payment of Rs.98,72,210/-, which is 25% of the balance of the disputed tax, for the year 2008-2009, and to provide security/bank guarantee for Rs.2,96,16,628/-, on or before 17.2.2012. The second respondent had directed the petitioner to make the pre-deposit, based on the reason that the verification of assessment orders, passed on 27.6.2011, and 2.8.2011, show 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 premise that the assessment in dispute had been finalized only after the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunity to explain its case. The goods that were transferred-in and transferred within the State of Tamilnadu had been shown as stock transerred-out. In the Central Sales Tax Return the assessee has to provide, inter alia, the value of the goods stock transferred outside the State. For the goods stock transferred out, the assessee has to produce Form-F, issued by the receiving State, based on which the stock transferred outside the state would not be liable to tax, under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 5. It had also been submitted that the assessing officer had also noted the arithmetical error. For the goods stock transferred out, the assessee has to produce Form-F, issued by the receiving State, based on which the stock transferred outside the state would not be liable to tax, under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 5. It had also been submitted that the assessing officer had also noted the arithmetical error. Since, there is no provision to review the assessment order, the petitioner had to file an appeal before the second respondent, against the assessment order of the third respondent, dated 2.8.2011. The petitioner had also filed a stay petition, before the second respondent, under Section 31(5) of Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, praying for an order of stay against the collection of tax of Rs.5,26,91,258/-, disputed in the appeal filed by the petitioner, in Ap.CST.10/2011, before the appellate forum. However, in spite of the fact that the assessment order, dated 2.8.2011, had been passed by the third respondent, due to certain clerical error that had been committed in the Central Sales Tax return, filed by the petitioner, for the assessment year 2008-2009, the second respondent had directed the petitioner to make a further payment of Rs.98,72,210/-, being 25% of the balance amount of the disputed tax, for the year 20082009, and also to provide security/bank guarantee for Rs.2,96,16,628/-, on or before 17.12.2012, arbitrarily, without proper application of mind. 6. It had also been stated that the petitioner had paid 25% of the disputed tax at the time of the filing of the appeal. Therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to pay a sum of Rs.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 in accordance with law. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has no serious objection for this Court passing an order, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 8. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has no serious objection for this Court passing an order, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 8. In view of the above, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.50 lakhs, as part of the tax, said to be payable by him, and to furnish a personal bond for the balance amount, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On the petitioner complying with the said conditions, the second respondent shall hear the appeal and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.