Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, in the presence of pending stay petitions before the appellate tribunal and apprehended recovery action, the writ court should exercise jurisdiction to direct early disposal of the stay petitions and preserve the existing position.
Analysis: The petitioner had already carried the orders in original in appeal before the appellate tribunal and had also filed stay petitions. As those stay petitions had not been taken up, the petitioner faced the risk of coercive recovery pursuant to the departmental circular. In such circumstances, instead of examining the merits of the duty demands, the appropriate course was to secure an effective hearing on the stay applications and prevent prejudice until the tribunal acts on them.
Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the petitioner. The writ court directed the appellate tribunal to dispose of the stay petitions within four weeks and ordered maintenance of status quo until such disposal.
Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were disposed of by granting interim protective relief and by ensuring prompt adjudication of the pending stay petitions before the appellate tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee has already pursued the statutory appeal and stay remedy, and recovery action is apprehended because the stay application remains undecided, the writ court may intervene to ensure timely disposal of the stay petition and preserve the status quo pending such decision.