Court allows appeal despite delay, directs Tribunal to expedite stay application review. Coercive actions halted.

The Court acknowledged the delay in filing the appeal due to late receipt of the judgment copy by the petitioner, allowing the appeal to proceed. Concerns were raised over the non-consideration of the stay petition by the 4th respondent, leading to coercive measures by the Department. The Court directed the Tribunal to expedite the consideration of the stay application to prevent the appeal from being a mere formality. All coercive actions by the Department were halted until the stay application was reviewed, emphasizing the need for prompt resolution to ensure substantive consideration of the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal by the petitioner.
2. Non-consideration of the stay petition by the 4th respondent.
3. Initiation of coercive steps by the Department to recover amounts covered by Ext.P1 and P3.
4. Petitioner's request for stay of further proceedings.
5. Delay in consideration of the petitioner's stay petition.
6. Potential impact on the appeal if the stay petition is not considered promptly.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, an assessee, challenged the Ext.P1 assessment order and Ext.P3 penalty order. Initially, the petitioner approached the High Court, which directed the petitioner to appeal to the appropriate forum. Despite the deadline for filing the appeal being missed by a couple of days, the Court acknowledged the delay due to late receipt of the judgment copy.

2. The petitioner filed a stay petition on 12.09.2017, which the 4th respondent did not consider. Meanwhile, the Department started coercive measures to recover the amounts in question, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition seeking relief.

3. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel argued for a stay of proceedings, while the Standing Counsel highlighted the delay in filing the appeal beyond the Court's permitted timeline. The petitioner did not specifically press for the disposal of the stay petition as a relief in the writ petition.

4. The Court recognized the delay in filing the appeal as not fatal, especially considering the circumstances of delayed receipt of the certified copy. However, the pending stay petition for over a year raised concerns about the appeal becoming a mere formality without prompt consideration.

5. To address the situation, the Court directed the Tribunal to expedite the consideration of the petitioner's stay application. Until the stay application is reviewed, the Department was instructed to halt all coercive actions, leading to the vacation of the garnishee order served on the 6th respondent.

6. The judgment concluded with the Court disposing of the writ petition, emphasizing the need for the Tribunal to promptly address the stay application to ensure the appeal's substantive consideration and prevent it from becoming a mere procedural step.

---