JUDGMENT : 1. When the matter is taken-up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that W.P.(MD).No.19875 of 2015 has become infructuous. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. 2. In all the other Writ Petitions, aggrieved against the conditions imposed by the appellate authority, while granting stay, the petitioner firms are before this Court. 3. Since the issue in question are one and the same, these Writ Petitions are taken up together and decided by way of a common order. 4. Mr. A. Muthukaruupan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 5. By consent, these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that at the time of preferring appeals, the petitioner firms have paid 25% of the disputed tax in each of the Writ Petitions. In fact, the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.19877 of 2014, have paid around 72% of the disputed tax. Apart from that, another 25% of the disputed tax has also been paid by the petitioners firms as per the impugned orders. For the balance amount, the appellate authority directed the petitioner firms to file a Security Bond or Bank Guarantee. However, the petitioner firms are not in a position to provide the same. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the amount demanded by the respondents is a disputed question, which has to be decided by the authority concerned. Therefore, he seeks modification of the order of the appellate authority. 7. The learned Additional Government Pleader would only contend that even as per the decision of the Supreme Court unless safe guard in respect of payment in question is made, the revenue of the Government will be at stake. Therefore, the order of the appellate authority holds good. Heard both sides. 8. The short point involved in this Writ Petition is the conditions imposed by the appellate authority in respect of stay granted in favour of the petitioner firm. As stated earlier, the petitioner firms have already paid 25% of the amount in question at the time of preferring the appeal and also another 25% of the disputed tax as per the impugned order. Now the question is regarding security bond or bank guarantee for the balance of tax and penalty amount. 9. As stated earlier, the petitioner firms have already paid 25% of the amount in question at the time of preferring the appeal and also another 25% of the disputed tax as per the impugned order. Now the question is regarding security bond or bank guarantee for the balance of tax and penalty amount. 9. In a similar occasion, I had an occasion to deal with the matter in W.P.(MD).No.20273 of 2013 dated 16.12.2013. In paragraph No.5, I have observed as follows:- “5. In an unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court made in W.A.(MD).No.194 of 2005, dated 13.07.2006, this Court has stated as follows:- “2. When the appellant preferred a statutory appeal before the first respondent, as a condition precedent for filing an appeal, the appellant deposited 25% of the tax assessed. It is stated that as per the interim orders of the first respondent, the appellant has also paid another 20% of the assessed tax which is under challenge before the first respondent. 3. In such circumstances, we feel that the interim order of stay granted by the first respondent can be directed to be continued subject to the appellant furnishing a personal bond for the remaining tax amount as well as penalty. 4. Subject to such modification, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of. The order of the learned Single Judge is also modified to the above extent. Such personal bond shall be furnished by the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.” 10. In view of the earlier order and also in view of the fact that the petitioner firms have paid the substantial amount towards their liability, this Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, modifies the conditions imposed by the appellate authority only insofar as to the grant of Bank Guarantee:- In lieu of Bank Guarantee, as directed by the appellate authority, the petitioner firms shall pay another 10% of the balance tax demanded in the notices in each of the Writ Petitions to the respondents, except in W.P.(MD).No.19877 of 2014, as they have paid more than 72%, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After the first condition is fulfilled, for the balance tax amount as well as for the entire penalty amount, the petitioner firms shall execute a personal bond with the appellate authority within a period of two weeks, thereafter, in all the cases. It is made clear that if the petitioner firms fail to adhere any one of the conditions imposed by this Court through this order, this modification granted by this Court shall stand dismissed without any reference to this Court and the order of the appellate authority will get automatically restored. These Writ Petitions stand allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.