JUDGMENT : P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. 1. Correctness and sustainability of the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by the petitioner/assessee is under challenge. 2. The crux of the grievance is that the challenge raised by the petitioner against Ext.P2 series notices issued by the authorities in respect of the different months of 2016 has not been properly appreciated with reference to actual facts and figures. 3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 4. It is brought to the notice of this Court that, in view of the ‘stop memo’ issued by the Departmental Authorities, particularly the Mining & Geology Department, the quarry and crusher unit of the petitioner were not working for quite long, by virtue of which the appellant was not in a position to satisfy the tax in respect of different months, in terms of the compounded tax to be paid under Section 8 of the VAT Act. The petitioner contends that since there was no production, there cannot be any exigency to tax and hence challenge was raised against the notices concerned. There was also an alternative prayer, to the effect that in view of the huge liability, the petitioner might be permitted to satisfy the liability by way of reasonable instalments. 5. After hearing both the sides, the learned Single Judge held that the explanation sought to be offered from the part of the petitioner was not all palatable in view of the specific provision for compounding. By virtue of the option exercised by the petitioner and the sanction given accordingly, it was obligatory for the assessee to have satisfied the tax in terms of the compounding provision. It was accordingly, that interference was declined and the writ petition was dismissed. However, considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner/assessee, the learned Judge permitted the assessee to satisfy the arrears by way of ‘six instalments’, with default clause. 6. It is stated that the petitioner has satisfied a portion of the outstanding liability. We do not find any tenable ground to intercept the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge declining interference on merits. 6. It is stated that the petitioner has satisfied a portion of the outstanding liability. We do not find any tenable ground to intercept the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge declining interference on merits. At the same time, the permission given to the assessee to clear the liability by way of six instalments requires to be modified, in view of the submissions made across the bar, stating that the assessee is ready to satisfy the same with effect from 1.7.2017. Accordingly, the date of first remittance stands modified and it shall be due on 1-7-2017, which shall be followed by the other instalments to be remitted on or before the first day of the succeeding months. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings, if any, shall be kept in abeyance. If any default is made with regard to any instalment, it will be open to the revenue to proceed with further steps, so as to realise the entire amount. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.