2019 (7) TMI 820 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment Order - grant of stay - case of petitioner is that either the mere filing of appeal or mere pendency of appeal does not amount to granting stay by the appellate authority - HELD THAT - A case is made out for issuing necessary directions to the 3rd respondent to dispose of the delay condonation petition and stay petition in Exts.P4(a) stay petition and P4(b) delay petition respectively. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in disposal of delay condonation and stay petitions leading to potential harm to petitioner's appeal rights.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed appeals challenging assessment orders under the KVAT Act, along with delay condonation and stay petitions. The petitioner argued that the mere filing or pendency of appeal does not automatically grant a stay on recovery actions by the assessing officer. Delays in deciding these petitions could result in the assessing officer recovering the disputed tax amount, rendering the appeal ineffective. The petitioner sought directions for expeditious disposal of the delay condonation and stay petitions to protect their appeal rights.

Upon reviewing the assessment orders and the appeal petitions, the Court acknowledged the need for prompt action on the delay condonation and stay petitions. The Court found merit in the petitioner's plea for directions to the appellate authority to promptly address these petitions to prevent any adverse impact on the appeal process. Consequently, the Court issued specific directives to the 3rd respondent to dispose of the delay condonation and stay petitions within a specified timeframe, emphasizing the importance of timely resolution to safeguard the petitioner's interests.

In light of the petitioner's concerns and the urgency of the matter, the Court decided to grant relief through the issuance of immediate directions. The Court ordered the appellate authority to expedite the consideration and disposal of the delay condonation and stay petitions within a stipulated period of two months from the date of the judgment. Additionally, the Court directed the respondents to refrain from taking coercive measures or recovering the disputed amounts mentioned in the orders under appeal for a specific period of ten weeks to ensure the petitioner's rights are protected during the pending proceedings.