9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is date. In fact, by this period of time, the appeal itself could have been heard and disposed of - It is not in dispute that the stay order is of the year 2013. It was extended last up to June 2017. Thereafter, there does not seem to be any extension. The action on the part of the respondent no.4 in attaching the bank accounts of the writ -applicant pending the appeals before the appellate authority is not justified. The Department has a bank guarantee as on date of ₹ 1 crore - the appellate authority should proceed immediately with the hearing of the appeals with an understanding that till the final disposal of the appeals, there shall be no coercive recovery of the amount demanded. Application disposed off. - R/SPECIAL CIV ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the hearing and final disposal of this petition, allow the petitioners to operate their banks account bearing no.06300310004647 with respondent no.5. (c) Direct respondents herein, pending the present petition, not to initiate any recovery proceedings; (d) set aside the impugned letter dated 20.11.2018 issued by respondent no.4 to respondent no.5 directing to issue a demand draft/pay order from the available balance in the petitioner's account. (e) Direct the respondent no.3 to pass an order extending the stay pending disposal of appeal. (e) For ad -interim relief in terms of prayer (b), (c) and (e) above. (f) For costs of the petition; (g) For such further any other relief as the nature and circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,275/ under the CST Act along with the imposition of penalty. 3.5 It also appears that the writ -applicant being dissatisfied with such assessment order referred to above challenged the same before this Court by filing the Special Civil Application No.9963 of 2013. However, this Court declined to entertain such writ-application on the ground of alternative remedy available to the writ -applicant. The writ -applicant, thereafter, preferred appeals along with the stay applications before the first appellate authority i.e. respondent no.3 challenging the assessment orders for the years 2007 08 and 2008 09 dated 31.03.2013. 3.6 It appears that the respondent no.3 directed the writ -applicant to make a pre -deposit of ₹ 2,00,000/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date of final disposal of the appeal preferred by the writ -applicant. 3.10 It is the case of the writ -applicant that although the pre -deposit and the bank guarantee was furnished, no extension was granted. It is not in dispute that the appeal preferred by the writ-applicant before the respondent no.3 is still pending. It is also not in dispute that the bank guarantee furnished by the writ -applicant is very much in force. The same has been renewed up to 31.07.2020. 3.11 Despite the above, the respondent no.4 , vide letter dated 20.11.2018, directed the bank i.e. respondent no.5 to issue demand draft/payment order for (i) ₹ 43,15,40,259/ for the alleged VAT and CST dues for the financial year 2007 08 and (ii) ₹ 145,94,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... note. 2. S.O to 12.06.2019. Till then, no coercive recovery shall be made against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order dated 31.03.2013. It is clarified that pendency of this petition shall not preclude the appellate authority from deciding the application for extension of stay made by the petitioner. 7. Thus, by way of ad -interim relief, the respondents have been restrained from withdrawing any amount from the bank accounts of the writ -applicant, which have been attached by the impugned orders. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the respondent no.4 could be said to be just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
