JUDGMENT 1. Seeking to quash the impugned order, dated 20.02.2013 passed by the first respondent in SP.No.7/2013 in APV.No.6/2013 and for a direction to the first respondent to grant absolute stay of collection of balance of tax and penalty, totaling to Rs.3,57,809/- for the assessment year 2007-08, without imposing any condition of furnishing of valid security in the form of Bank Guarantee pending disposal of the appeal, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. 2. According to the petitioner, they are engaged by Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) as a service provider to carry on the job of operation and maintenance in their Petrol Bunk outlet premises named as COCO Unit (Company Owned Company Operated Outlet) called as "Swagat". While so, the 2nd respondent, based on the inspection report from the Enforcement Wing Officials with reference to inspection conducted by them on 29.10.2010 in the petrol bunk premises, by an order of assessment in TIN 33241123074/2007-08, dated 25.10.2012, assessed the petitioner by arriving deemed sales value on the ground that the petitioner has effected purchase of lubricant oils and that the petitioner has not reported such sales and accordingly imposed tax and penalty ignoring the objections filed before passing of the impugned order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent along with a stay petition stating that the purchases were not made by them, but were related to IOCL and that the 2nd respondent is not justified in foisting the liability on the petitioner, who is only a service provider and prayed for absolute stay of the impugned tax and penalty. 3. Pursuant thereto, it is the case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent, by an order dated 20.02.2013 in SP.No.7/2013 in APV.No.6/2013, directed the petitioner to pay another 25% of the disputed tax being Rs.44,727/- and with regard to the balance of tax and penalty, totaling to Rs.3,57,809/-, directed to file valid security in the form of Bank Guarantee on or before 20.03.2013. 4. The petitioner would further state that he has complied with the first condition by paying another 25% of the disputed tax being Rs.44,727/-. 4. The petitioner would further state that he has complied with the first condition by paying another 25% of the disputed tax being Rs.44,727/-. The petitioner has so far paid 50% of the disputed tax, but, finds extremely difficult to accumulate funds to file valid security in the form of Bank Guarantee with regard to the balance of tax and penalty totaling to Rs.3,57,809/- in view of the financial crunch faced by him now. 5. Heard Mr. Md. Ghafoorur Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Government Advocate (Tax) appearing for the respondents. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that they are engaged by IOCL as a service provider to carry on the job of operation and maintenance in their Petrol Bunk outlet premises named as COCO Unit, called as "Swagat". While so, the second respondent, based on the inspection report from the Enforcement Wing Officials with reference to inspection conducted by them on 29.10.2010 in the petrol bunk premises, by an order of assessment in TIN 33241123074/2007-08 dated 25.10.2012, assessed the petitioner by arriving in deemed sales value on the ground that the petitioner has effected purchase of lubricant oils and that the petitioner has not reported such sales and accordingly imposed tax and penalty ignoring the objections filed before passing of the impugned order, as against which the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent along with stay petition. The only ground raised by the petitioner in the appeal is that they have good chances of succeeding the case. But, however, they pleaded before the Appellate Authority about their financial hardship for payment of the balance tax and penalty and that the prima-facie and balance of convenience may be considered. Such plea of the petitioner was taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority and an order of stay was passed on 20.02.2013 in S.P.No.7/2013 in APV No.6/2013 to the following effect: "The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.44,727/-being 25% of the disputed amount of taxes due, before the Learned Assessing Authority on or before 20.03.2013. With regard to the balance tax and penalty totaling in all Rs.3,57,809/-, the Petitioner is directed to file valid security in the form of Bank Guarantee obtained from any of the Nationalised Banks executed in favour of the Assessing Authority concerned on or before 20.03.2013. With regard to the balance tax and penalty totaling in all Rs.3,57,809/-, the Petitioner is directed to file valid security in the form of Bank Guarantee obtained from any of the Nationalised Banks executed in favour of the Assessing Authority concerned on or before 20.03.2013. Thus, there will be stay with regard to the collection of balance tax and penalty, totaling in all Rs.3,57,809/-till the disposal of the appeal or till 20.08.2013, whichever is earlier. The Bank Guarantee / Security Bond of immovable Property shall be kept above / encumbered till the disposal of the appeal. In case of default, the stay shall automatically stand cancelled and the Assessing Authority is at liberty to proceed against the Appellants, according to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for collection of the arrears." 7. On a perusal of the entire order passed by the first respondent herein, viz., the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, it is revealed that much indulgence has been shown by them keeping in mind that the merits of the case will be ascertained only in subsequent hearings of the case and the final outcome of the appeal is not of immediate imminence to the authority. After taking into account the balance of convenience between the parties and also the interest of the Revenue, the first respondent has ultimately come to the conclusion that 25% of the disputed amount of the tax due, has to be paid by the petitioner on or before 20.03.2013 and with regard to the balance tax and penalty totaling about Rs.3,57,809/-, the petitioner was directed to file valid security in the form of Bank Guarantee obtained from any of the Nationalised Banks executed in favour of the Assessing Authority. Thus, the first respondent granted an order of stay with the regard to the collection of balance tax and penalty, totaling in all Rs.3,57,809/- till the disposal of the appeal or till 20.08.2013, whichever is earlier. 8. In my considered opinion, the indulgence shown by the Assessing Authority in a lenient way cannot be questioned by the petitioner, in this writ petition. The factors to be followed while granting waiver on any conditions have been scrupulously followed by the respondents, in ordering the said petition. Such an order does not warrant interference, however, the first respondent has observed that merits of the case can be ascertained only after hearing the case. The factors to be followed while granting waiver on any conditions have been scrupulously followed by the respondents, in ordering the said petition. Such an order does not warrant interference, however, the first respondent has observed that merits of the case can be ascertained only after hearing the case. The only hardship expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner-Company is a service provider, carrying on the job of operation and maintenance in their petrol bunk premises namely COCO Unit and their financial condition may be taken note of. 9. Considering the above submission, it would be possible only to the extent of ordering modification in the order of stay, dated 20.02.2013, to the following extent: "The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.44,727/-being 25% of the disputed amount of tax due before the Assessing Authority. Out of the balance tax and penalty totaling to Rs.3,57,809/-, the petitioner shall furnish bank guarantee for 50% of the said amount and for the remaining 50% of amount, he shall execute a personal bond within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The default condition imposed by the appellate authority remains unaltered." 10. In fine, the writ petition is disposed of only to the extent of modification indicated above. No costs.