9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 1348 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRecovery proceedings - security furnished by petitioner as contemplated by Section 33(5) of Haryana VAT Act - petitioner states that it had offered the security but the same has not even been considered by the respondents - HELD THAT - The writ petition is disposed of by directing the concerned officer of the respondents to decide whether the security offered by the petitioner is adequate or not. Till such decision is taken and for a period of one week thereafter, the recovery shall not be made pursuant to the order dated 22.12.2014.
Issues Involved: Petition challenging non-constitution of Tribunal under Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and failure to consider security offered by the petitioner.
Analysis: 1. Non-constitution of Tribunal: The petition was filed due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, which was essential for the appeal filed by the petitioner to proceed. The judgment highlighted that the constitution of the Tribunal was dependent on other proceedings unrelated to the present writ petition. As a result, the appeal could not proceed at the current stage due to the absence of the Tribunal. 2. Consideration of Security: The respondents informed the court that if the petitioner furnishes security as required by Section 33(5) of the Act, recovery proceedings would not be initiated. The petitioner claimed to have offered the security but alleged that it had not been considered by the respondents. The court emphasized the importance of the respondents assessing the adequacy of the security offered by the petitioner before proceeding with any recovery actions. 3. Judicial Decision: The judgment concluded by directing the concerned officer of the respondents to evaluate whether the security provided by the petitioner was sufficient. Pending this assessment and for one week thereafter, no recovery actions were to be taken based on the previous order. Additionally, during this period, the petitioner was prohibited from disposing of its immovable properties or encumbering them in any way. This decision aimed to ensure a fair evaluation of the security offered before any recovery proceedings were initiated.
|
