Adequacy of security before recovery: court required prior decision on offered security and stayed recovery pending that determination.

The High Court directed the competent officer to first determine whether the security offered by the petitioner under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was adequate, after the petitioner said the offer had not been examined. Because the appeal could not proceed as the Tribunal had not been constituted, and the respondents stated that recovery would not be initiated if proper security was furnished, the Court restrained recovery under the order dated 22.12.2014 until that decision was made and for one week thereafter. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with interim protection pending the respondents' decision on the offered security.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were required to examine the adequacy of the security offered by the petitioner and whether recovery should remain stayed until such examination was completed.

Analysis: The petition arose because the appeal could not proceed as the Tribunal under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 had not been constituted. The respondents stated that recovery would not be initiated if security was furnished under Section 33(5) of the Act. Since the petitioner asserted that security had already been offered but not considered, the Court directed the competent officer to first decide whether the security was adequate.

Conclusion: The respondents were directed to decide the adequacy of the security offered by the petitioner, and recovery pursuant to the order dated 22.12.2014 was restrained until that decision and for one week thereafter.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of with interim protection in favour of the petitioner pending the respondents' decision on the offered security.

---