9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount. The Rajasthan High Court in the case of Manglam Cement Ltd. v. Superintendent of C. Ex. Range-III, Kota [2013 (4) TMI 102 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT], categorically held that mere filing of an appeal does not operate as stay or suspension of an order appeal against. The interim order sought for was refused at the admission stage. Therefore, the petitioner cannot say that the authorities are denuded of its power to take steps for recovery of the amount. The petitioner has tried to demonstrate before this Court that certain observations were made when the earlier writ petition was taken up, which inevitably suggest that the Court was conscious of the situation that the authorities shall not take any coercive measures pending the said writ p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e months from the date of the said order and till such period the respondents were restrained from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner. 2. The matter was subsequently taken up on 3rd April, 2013 when a confusion was sought to be created by the petitioner relating to the words dues and demand . 3. According to the petitioner whether the liability subsequent to the period, which is the subject matter of the said writ petition, may come under the purview of dues or it is restricted to the adjudicated amounts as assessed by the Assessing Authority. 4. The Court did not find any justification for such modification and clearly held that the modification is not required at this stage. However, the Court thought it fit to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the department intended to initiate a recovery proceedings. In the backdrop of above, the Division Bench held that the department cannot take advantage on their own wrong. 8. This Court does not find that the ratio laid down in the said judgment rendered by the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court can at all be applicable in the present case. 9. The writ petition challenging the original order has been filed by the petitioner before this Court with a prayer for an interim order. The Court consciously recorded that no case is made out for issuance of any interim protection at the stage of admission. The Court, however, permitted the petitioner to deposit the dues and passed an unconditional order restraining the department from tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... non est. 11. Although the petitioner relies upon the communicating letter issued by the advocate on record depicting the said fact, but my endeavour has failed to find any such finding in the orders passed from time to time in the said proceedings. Furthermore if certain event has taken place and the observation is made by the Court orally, the same Hon ble judge can only modify/clarify or indicate the happenings of such event and not by another judge or the higher forum. 12. Since there is no interim order passed by the Court restraining the department from proceeding to recover the amount, the contemplation at the behest of the department for taking measures to recover the said amount cannot be faulted with. 13. This Court, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
