2019 (9) TMI 238 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Continuation of stay granted against Recovery - Revenue had fairly submitted that, the appeals concerned are now posted for final hearing to 3. 9. 2019 - HELD THAT - The stay granted against recovery can be continued till the disposal of such appeals, provided the review petitioner participates in the hearing and co-operate with disposal of the appeals at the earliest. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Ernakulam is directed to dispose of Exts. P27 to P31 appeals (originally filed as revision petitions) at the earliest possible - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Review petitioner seeking permission to file statutory appeals against impugned orders.
2. Lack of specific direction in the common judgment regarding a particular writ petition.
3. Stay granted against pursuing recovery steps during the pendency of a writ petition.
4. Continuation of the stay against recovery till the disposal of appeals.
5. Modification of judgment in a specific writ petition for early disposal of appeals.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed the review petitioner's request to file statutory appeals against impugned orders. The court permitted the review petitioner to challenge the impugned orders in specific writ petitions before the appropriate appellate authorities. It directed that if the appeals were filed within three weeks, they would be entertained as filed within the stipulated time limit. Any interim applications seeking a stay of recovery were to be considered by the authorities, taking into account all contentions raised by the petitioner.

2. The court noted a lack of specific direction in the common judgment regarding a particular writ petition. The challenge in this writ petition was against an interim order passed by the appellate authority. Due to inadvertence, no specific direction was issued in the common judgment concerning this writ petition, leading to the need for clarification and modification.

3. During the proceedings, it was highlighted that there was a stay granted against pursuing recovery steps while the writ petition was pending. The review petitioner emphasized that an interim stay had been in place against the recovery process throughout the pendency of the writ petition, indicating the importance of maintaining this stay until the final resolution of the matter.

4. Considering the circumstances and the pending final hearing of the appeals, the court decided to continue the stay against recovery until the disposal of the appeals. The review petitioner was required to participate in the hearing and cooperate with the quick resolution of the appeals to ensure a timely conclusion to the legal proceedings.

5. The judgment concluded by allowing the review petition to modify the judgment in the specific writ petition. It directed the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the appeals promptly. The review petitioner/writ petitioner was instructed to cooperate for the early disposal of the appeals, with a deadline set for their resolution within one month. Until the appeals were disposed of as directed, the realization of the disputed penalty amount was to be kept in abeyance, ensuring fairness and procedural compliance in the legal process.