JUDGMENT 1. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner company would submit that the petitioner is a Public Limited company and is having factories at Padi, Special Economic Zone, Mahindra City, Krishnapuram, Hosur, Gummidipundi and Velappanchavadi, in the State of Tamilnadu and they are involved in the activity of manufacture of High Tensile Fasteners, Gear Shifter, Radiator Caps, Cold Extruded Components, Power Metal Parts, Oil and Water Pumps and Engine Parts, and is an assessee on the file of the 1st respondent. 3. It is further stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the products manufactured by them are disposed by various methods and they also effect local sales within the State of Tamilnadu and also effect inter-State sales to registered dealers against C declaration forms, contemplated by Section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with Rule 127 of the CST (R&T) Rules and they also export all their final product. In the course of financial year 2009-2010, of the Central Sales Tax Act, the 1st respondent completed an assessment dated 21.03.2014 and subsequently, on production of part of the declaration forms, the respondent rectified the assessment dated 21.03.2014 on 17.04.2014 and after the rectification, the following position emerged. Sl.No. Nature of issue Turnover involved Turnover for which documents produced Turnover for which documents not produced 1. Sale of Steel scrap and both & nuts 339,21,37,442 246,80,59,060 92,40,78,382 2. Sale of Auto Parts 345,86,86,686 203,55,71,399 142,31,15,287 3. Transfer of Bolts & nuts to Units 3 873,73,549 873,73,549 ------ 4. Transfer of Auto Parts to Units 4 99,09,878 99,09,878 ------ 5. Sale of Fasteners against Form H 24,22,881 11,00,957 13,21,924 6. Sale of Auto Parts against Form H 2,20,921 1,96,595 24,326 7. Sale against Form I 290,00,211 288,83,796 1,16,415 4. The petitioner aggrieved by the assessment order dated 21.03.2014, which was subsequently rectified on 17.04.2014, filed an application before the 2nd respondent under Section 52 of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and as a condition precedent for filing the appeal, they have deposited 25% of the disputed tax and they also moved an application for stay of recovery of the balance tax and penalty and according to them, the total disputed tax in the appeal works out to Rs.17,26,98,267/-. 5. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that after making the deposit of 25% of the disputed tax of Rs.4,31,74,037/-they moved an application for stay of the recovery of the balance disputed tax, which works out to Rs.12,95,22,111/- and on 16.06.2014, the 2nd respondent has passed an order on the stay application by directing the petitioner to deposit a further 25% of the disputed tax amounting to Rs.4,31,74,566/-, with a further direction, directing them to furnish Bank Guarantee for the balance of tax of Rs.8,63,47,545/-. 6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though, they have filed an application for modification before the 2nd respondent, they are constrained to approach this Court for the reason that the effective disputed amount in the appeal pending before the 2nd respondent, stood reduced on account of the fact that the petitioner is in possession of part of the 'C' Declaration form at the time of hearing of the stay application and further, there is no necessity to furnish the Bank Guarantee as Section 42(1) contemplates that the tax demanded under Section 21, shall be paid without any notice of demand and on default of such payment, the whole of the amount outstanding on the date of the default shall become immediately due and shall be a charge on the properties of the person or persons liable to pay the tax or penalty or interest under this Act and in terms of the said provision, there is a charge on the whole of the properties of the petitioner and there is no necessity on their part to furnish the bank guarantee. 7. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions would submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax of Rs.17,26,98,267/-, in terms of Paragraph No.5(1) of the impugned order. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the various final orders passed by this Court directing the concerned petitioner to offer their personal bond for the remaining amount, which is available at page Nos.1 to 15 of the typed set of papers. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the various final orders passed by this Court directing the concerned petitioner to offer their personal bond for the remaining amount, which is available at page Nos.1 to 15 of the typed set of papers. 8. Per Contra, Mr.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader (Tax), vehemently contended that proper adjudication has been made and after affording an opportunity, it also stood rectified and since the 2nd respondent has exercised his discretion in proper manner, interference may not be warranted at the hands of this Court. 9. This Court has carefully considered the rival submission and also perused the materials available on record. 10. This Court, taking into consideration the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, that he is ready and willing to comply with the condition at Paragraph No.5(1) of the impugned order dated 16.06.2014 and also Section 42(1) of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, proposes to pass the following order: (a) the petitioner is directed to pay 25% of the disputed tax of Rs.17,26,98,267/- on or before 22.08.2014. (b) the petitioner shall execute personal bond for 50% of the disputed tax, on or before 22.08.2014. (c) if the petitioner complies with these conditions, there shall be an order of interim stay pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent and if the petitioner fails to comply with the conditions stipulated above, the impugned order stands restored. 11. The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.