Judgment 1. Aggrieved against the conditions imposed by the appellate authority, while granting stay, the petitioner firm is before this Court. 2. 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. 3. Mr.A.Muthukaruupan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 4. By consent, these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 5. At the time of preferring an appeal, the petitioner firm has paid 25% of the disputed tax in each of the Writ Petitions. For the balance amount, the appellate authority directed the petitioner firm to file a Security Bond or Bank Guarantee. However, the petitioner firm is not in a position to provide the same. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the amount demanded by the respondents is a disputed question, which has to be decided by the authority concerned. Further, in some of the cases, the petitioner firm has paid the amount between 50% and 90% demanded in the impugned notices. Therefore, he seeks modification of the orders of the appellate authority. 6. 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. 7. The short point involved in this Writ Petition is as to the conditions imposed by the appellate authority in respect of stay granted in favour of the petitioner firm. As stated earlier, the petitioner firm has already paid 25% of the amount in question at the time of preferring the appeal and in some of the cases the petitioner firm has paid the amount between 50% and 90% of the impugned demand notices issued by the respondents. Now the question is regarding security bond or bank guarantee for the balance of tax and penalty amount. 8. 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 of the said order, it is stated as follows:- “5. Now the question is regarding security bond or bank guarantee for the balance of tax and penalty amount. 8. 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 of the said order, it is stated 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.” Following the said order, I have also disposed of Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD).Nos.402 to 408 of 2014 dated 13.01.2015. 9. In view of the earlier order and also in view of the fact that the petitioner firm has paid the amount towards his liability, this court, considering the amount sofar paid in each of the Writ Petitions, modifies the conditions imposed by the appellate authority only insofar as to the grant of Bank Guarantee or Security Bond, which is tabulated below:- SL. NO Writ Petition No. Amount to be paid by the petitioner 1. 685 of 2015 Nil 2. 686 of 2015 Nil 3. 687 of 2015 Rs.67310/- 4. 688 of 2015 Rs.61630/- 5. 689 of 2015 Nil 6. NO Writ Petition No. Amount to be paid by the petitioner 1. 685 of 2015 Nil 2. 686 of 2015 Nil 3. 687 of 2015 Rs.67310/- 4. 688 of 2015 Rs.61630/- 5. 689 of 2015 Nil 6. 690 of 2015 Nil i. Therefore, in lieu of Bank Guarantee or Security Bond, as directed by the appellate authority, the petitioner firm is directed to pay the amount as per Sl.Nos.3 and 4 of the tabulation to the respondents, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ii. For the balance tax amount as well as for the entire penalty amount for all the cases, the petitioner firm shall execute a personal bond with the appellate authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if the petitioner firm fails to adhere any one of the conditions imposed by this Court through this order, this modification granted by this Court shall stand cancelled without any reference to this Court and the order of the appellate authority will get automatically restored. 10. These Writ Petitions stand allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.