Interim protection against surety bond enforcement granted while refund-related special rate applications remain pending.

Writ petition challenged apprehended enforcement of surety bonds under a refund-related notification regime while applications for special rates remained pending. The Gauhati HC considered it appropriate to issue notice, call for departmental instructions, and preserve the petitioner's position by granting interim protection against enforcement of the surety bonds until the next returnable date. The Court also clarified that pendency of the writ petition would not prevent the authorities from deciding the pending applications for special rates.

---

---

Issues: Whether notice should be issued in the writ petition challenging apprehended enforcement of surety bonds executed under the refund-related notification regime, and whether interim protection against enforcement should be granted pending consideration of the petition.

Analysis: The petition was founded on the apprehension that the departmental authorities might enforce the surety bonds without first issuing any notice or communication, while the petitioner's applications for special rates under the relevant notifications remained pending. The Court found it appropriate to issue notice, obtain instructions from the departmental side, and preserve the petitioner's position in the meantime. It also clarified that pendency of the writ petition would not prevent the authorities from deciding the pending applications for special rates.

Outcome: Notice was issued, interim protection was granted against enforcement of the surety bonds until the next returnable date, and the matter was directed to be listed again for further consideration.

---