2019 (6) TMI 309 - HC - GST

Stay of recovery - amounts due under the assessment orders - apprehending that coercive steps - condonation of delay of 39 days in filing the appeals - HELD THAT - Since the petitioner failed to avail the statutory remedy against the assessment orders within time, it is for the appellate authority to consider the applications for condonation of delay and if satisfied with the explanation, to condone the delay and to thereupon consider the stay petition. Writ Petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitions for condonation of delay. Coercive steps shall be deferred till a decision as above is taken by the second respondent, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing appeals and petitions for condonation of delay.
2. Apprehension of coercive recovery steps during pendency of appeals.
3. Direction to consider and pass orders on petitions for condonation of delay and stay petitions.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a registered dealer with the State GST Department, filed appeals against Assessment Orders for the years 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 (Exhibits- P1, P1A, P1B) with a delay of 39 days. Consequently, petitions for condonation of delay (Exts P3, P3A, P3B) and stay petitions (Exts P4, P4A, P4B) were submitted. The court noted that the statutory remedy against the assessment orders was not availed within the stipulated time, and therefore, the appellate authority was directed to consider the applications for condonation of delay and, if satisfied with the explanation, to condone the delay and subsequently review the stay petitions.

2. The Writ Petition was filed due to the petitioner's concern that coercive measures for recovering the amounts under the assessment orders might be initiated while the appeals were pending. In response, the court ordered that coercive steps pursuant to the assessment orders (Exts P1, P1A, P1B) should be deferred until a decision was made by the second respondent on the petitions for condonation of delay and stay petitions submitted along with the appeals (Ext P2 series). This direction aimed to provide relief to the petitioner during the appeal process.

3. The judgment concluded by disposing of the Writ Petition and instructing the second respondent to promptly review and issue orders on the petitions for condonation of delay and stay petitions. The court emphasized that coercive actions should be postponed until the second respondent's decision, ideally within a month from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment. This directive aimed to ensure a fair consideration of the petitioner's requests and to prevent any immediate adverse actions while the appeals were being processed.