9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 898X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged a letter dated 11.3.2019 (AnnexureA to the petition) issued by the second respondent - State Tax Officer continuing the instructions of restraining transfer of vehicles to RTO authorities and attachment of land. 3. The petitioner is engaged in the business of executing service contracts using earth moving machinery such as excavators. The petitioner purchased excavators from outside the State of Gujarat from time to time for executing service contracts and believed that such excavators were not specified goods for the purpose of the Gujarat Tax on Entry of Specified Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the "Entry Tax Act") and hence, did not discharge liability u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.2019. The stay granted earlier came to be extended from time to time. 5. Despite the stay order being in operation, the second respondent did not revoke the instruction given to the RTO authorities to debar transfer of any vehicles of the petitioner, nor was attachment of the agricultural land withdrawn. The petitioner, therefore, by letter dated 1.3.2019, informed the second respondent that the appellate authority had granted stay order against the recovery action of all the years on part pay and requested him to revoke the recovery proceedings. However, by the impugned order dated 11.3.2019, the second respondent informed the petitioner that since the appeals of the petitioner are still pending, the earlier instructions issued to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rain transfer of any vehicle of the petitioner. The impugned communication dated 11.3.2019 of the second respondent is clearly in contravention of the stay order passed by the first appellate authority in favour of the petitioner; and is in flagrant disregard of the same, and, therefore, cannot be sustained. It is quite perturbing to note that despite the first appellate authority having stayed further recovery, not only did the second respondent not act on his own and revoke the instructions issued to the RTO authorities and lift the attachment over the land, even after the petitioner drew his attention to the order and made a request to revoke the instructions and attachment, the second respondent in flagrant disobedience of the order pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
