Coercive recovery stayed where Tribunal lacked a Presiding Officer, pending appointment and restoration of a functioning forum.

Where a second appeal and stay application were pending before the Tribunal but no Presiding Officer or Member was available, the Gujarat HC intervened to prevent litigants from being prejudiced by an unavailable forum. Without examining the merits of the tax classification dispute or the correctness of earlier Tribunal orders, the Court granted protection against coercive recovery under the impugned notice until the Tribunal became functional. The Court also allowed an additional two weeks after appointment of the Presiding Officer or Member for the petitioners to proceed as directed.

---

---

Issues: Whether coercive recovery pursuant to the impugned notice could be stayed till the appointment of the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, when the stay application could not be heard for want of a functioning forum.

Analysis: The petitioners' second appeal and stay application were pending before the Tribunal, but no member was available to preside over it. In these exceptional circumstances, and without entering into the merits of the tax classification dispute or the correctness of the Tribunal's earlier orders, the Court found it necessary to intervene so that the litigants would not suffer because the forum was unavailable. The Court therefore granted protection against coercive recovery until the Tribunal became functional, and also granted a further two weeks' time after such appointment.

Conclusion: The recovery notice was stayed till the appointment of the Presiding Officer or Member of the Tribunal, and the petitioners were granted additional time as directed.

---