Pending sales tax exemption claim can justify keeping coercive recovery in abeyance until final decision.

A Government communication advising the recovery authority that a sales tax exemption application was under consideration and requesting that no coercive steps be taken was treated as effective, and the objection to its validity was rejected because the State could not disown the act of its own officer on those facts. With the exemption claim still pending before the competent authority, coercive revenue recovery was held inappropriate until the claim was finally decided. The authority was directed to dispose of the exemption application within one month, leaving the recovery proceedings in abeyance in the meantime and providing interim protection against coercive recovery.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the objection to the validity of the communication issued by the Government officer could be accepted so as to disregard the direction protecting the unit from coercive recovery; (ii) Whether the revenue recovery proceedings could continue while the application for sales tax exemption remained pending.

Issue (i): The communication issued by the Government officer, informing the recovery authority that the exemption application was under process and requesting that no coercive steps be taken until further intimation, was held to be operative. The objection that the officer lacked jurisdiction was rejected, since the communication emanated from an officer of the Government and the Government could not disown the act of its own officer in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The objection was rejected and the communication was treated as effective.

Issue (ii): The exemption claim had not yet been finally decided, and the Court held that the matter should be concluded expeditiously. Pending final orders on the exemption application, coercive recovery would defeat the purpose of keeping the claim under consideration, though the authority was directed to decide the application within a fixed time.

Conclusion: The revenue recovery proceedings were directed to remain in abeyance until the exemption application was decided, and the application was to be disposed of within one month.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained interim protection against coercive recovery, while the competent authority was required to decide the sales tax exemption request promptly.

Ratio Decidendi: When an exemption claim is pending before the competent authority, coercive recovery may be kept in abeyance until the claim is finally decided, especially where the Government has issued a communication protecting the assessee from immediate recovery.

---