JUDGMENT
Bakthavatsalam, J.

1. The petitioner attacks the order passed by the second respondent in the stay petition filed by the petitioner for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88.

2. It seems that originally when the assessmeCourt clarified that neither Section 31 of the Act nor Rule 31(2) of the Rules imposes a condition for the assessee to furnish a security bond with the assessing officer before moving the appellate authority for a stay. The appellate authority is the competent body to decide on the stay application, including whether security is required and its form. The assessing officer’s role is merely to process the furnishing of security once directed by the appellate authority, not to pre-approve it or determine the maintainability of appeals.nt was made a dispute arose with regard to the question whether the turnover which was brought to tax is out of the sale of the scrap or condemned vehicles, etc. For this purpose the appellate authority remitted back the matter to the assessing officer to make a fresh assessment. As against this the first respondent passed the very same order, against which an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. It seems that when the petitioner approached the assessing officer to get an endorsement in the security bond to the effect that the bank guarantee for the undisputed amount of tax has been received by the assessing officer, the assessing officer returned the papers stating as follows :

“Returned.

(2) The demands of Rs. 4,25,161 and Rs. 51,727 respectively for the years 1986-87 and 1987-88 raised on account of giving effect to the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (C.T.), Thanjavur, in A.P. No. 457 of 1989 and 327 of 1989, dated 22nd July, 1989, in which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (C.T.) has directed to find out the turnover of the buses sold a single unit and assess at 15 per cent and other various scraps at 5 per cent which has been carried out in this office assessment proceedings in TNGST No. 424857/86-87, dated 15th December, 1989, in TNGST No. 424857/87-88 dated 15th December, 1989, by making fresh assessment orders.

(3) As such, no appeal order against these assessment orders lie, before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (C.T.), Thanjavur. The stay petition to be filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (C.T.), Thanjavur, could not be entertained by me as there is no provision under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act to prefer appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (C.T.) against the orders of the same Appellate Assistant Commissioner (C.T.), Thanjavur.”

When the petitioner approached the appellate authority, the appellate authority returned the paper once again to the petitioner with the following endorsement :

“Returned.

According to form XIX-C, note (2) the bank guarantee has to be filed before the assessing authority and a certificate to the effect has to be obtained from the assessing authority. The omissions may be supplied and the stay petition may be re-presented along with this check slip on or before 20th January, 1990.”

3. Mr. R. Lokapriya appears for the respondents. Mr. S. Ramanathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that it is not open to the second respondent to ask for such an endorsement from the assessing authority. I think learned counsel for the petitioner is quite right in his submission. In Southern Power Systems (P.) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu 76 STC 345 (Mad.); (1989) 10 SISTC 166 (Mad.) Venkataswami, J., has considered a similar issue and has held that section 31 of the Act and rule 31(2) of the Rules do not show that there is any condition precedent which directs the assessee to furnish a security bond before the assessing officer before the assessee moves the appellate authority for stay. I think that ratio will equally apply to the facts of this case also. The astonishing factor to be noted here is that the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer while passing orders on 2nd January, 1990, which has been extracted supra, has not understood the provisions of the Act or the powers of the appellate authority or the assessing authority. I do not see any provision for filing the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the very same order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner himself. I think that the assessing officer has gone at a tangent and returned the papers to the petitioner without understanding the provisions of the Act or the powers of the appellate authorities. The return made by the assessing authority is wholly unwarranted on the facts and circumstances of this case. I do hope that the officials of the Commercial Tax Department will at least in future, study the provisions of the Act carefully before they pass any orders on the petitions filed by the assessees or return the papers to the assessees.

4. In the result, the writ petitions will stand allowed and the appellate authority is directed to take up the appeals and the stay petitions filed by the petitioner on file and dispose of them and pass final orders on the stay petition on merits within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.

5. Writ petitions allowed.