TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court instructs timely decision on stay petition, halts recovery process pending appeal resolution.</h1> The High Court directed the appellate authority to expedite the consideration of a pending appeal and stay petition filed by the petitioner. The Court ... Stay petition - steps of recovery initiated on the basis of Ext.P3 notice - Held that:- Writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2(a) stay petition filed along with the appeal, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, recovery of the amounts covered under Ext.P1, which is now initiated on the basis of Ext.P3 notice, shall be kept in abeyance. Issues:1. Coercive recovery initiated without considering the pending appeal and stay petition.Analysis:The petitioner had filed an appeal against Ext.P1 order of assessment, along with a stay petition, which are pending consideration before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner's grievance is that coercive recovery steps have been initiated based on Ext.P3 notice without taking into account the pending appeal.The High Court, after hearing the Government Pleader, directed the appellate authority to expedite the matter considering the pendency of the statutory appeal. The Court disposed of the writ petition by instructing the 2nd respondent to consider and decide on the stay petition (Ext.P2(a)) filed with the appeal. The 2nd respondent was directed to pass orders after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of the judgment.Furthermore, the Court ordered that the recovery of amounts mentioned in Ext.P1, which was initiated based on Ext.P3 notice, should be put on hold until the 2nd respondent passes orders as directed. The petitioner was instructed to present a copy of the judgment to the 2nd respondent. It was emphasized that the 2nd respondent should make earnest efforts to dispose of the appeal at the earliest possible.In conclusion, the High Court addressed the issue of coercive recovery being initiated without considering the pending appeal and stay petition. The Court's judgment focused on expediting the decision-making process by instructing the 2nd respondent to consider and decide on the stay petition filed along with the appeal within a specified time frame, while also halting the recovery process until a decision is made.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
