ORDER Ashok B. Hinchigeri :- The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent passed the reassessment order on July 15, 2010 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ("the KAT", for short) on August 2, 2010. It has also made an I.A. for stay. The KAT posted the matter to August 9, 2010 for consideration of the petitioner's I.A. for stay. Meanwhile, the respondent has resorted to the recovery proceedings, issued notices under section 45 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ("the VAT Act", for short) to the parties from whom the money is due to the petitioner. Sri R. V. Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the challenge to the said notices contending that when the KAT is seized of the matter, the respondent should not precipitate the crisis. He submits that as many as 400 employees are working in the petitioner's foundry. He brings to my notice the provisions contained in section 18A(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 which provides for the filing of the appeal within 60 days from the date on which the order is communicated to a aggrieved person. That, if the coercive recovery proceedings are resorted to even before the expiry of the period of limitation provided by the Legislature, the appeal remedy would be rendered nugatory, is the contention of Sri Prasad. He has relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner (CT), Coimbatore reported in [2008] 17 VST 32, wherein it is held that coercive steps should not be taken for recovery of dues before the expiry of the appeal period. It is further held that the recourse taken by the assessing officer to recover the arrears, in such a hasty manner, even without giving adequate time to the assessee to prefer an appeal, is arbitrary. It is further held that the recourse taken by the assessing officer to recover the arrears, in such a hasty manner, even without giving adequate time to the assessee to prefer an appeal, is arbitrary. Nextly, Sri Prasad has relied on the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India reported in [1992] 59 ELT 505, wherein the tax collecting authorities' act of encashing the bank guarantee even before the expiry of statutory period of three months and even when the assessee had informed the authorities of the posting of the stay application before the Tribunal, was held to be bad. Sri K. M. Shivayogiswamy, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - caveator, submits that there is no legal impediment in resorting to the recovery proceedings pending consideration of the petitioner's application for stay. He also submits that the Madras High Court's judgment is in the context of the authorities resorting to the recovery proceedings on the very day on which the assessment order came to be passed. He prays for the dismissal of the writ petition. Without prejudice to this request, he submits that if this court is inclined to grant an interim order of stay, the same cannot be unconditional; it has to be by putting the petitioner on terms. He submits that normally the courts and the Tribunals grant interim order of stay with a rider that the assessee has to pay 50 per cent of the demanded amounts. The rival submissions made at the bar have received my thoughtful consideration. The facts are not in dispute at all. The reassessment order is passed on July 15, 2010. Appeal challenging the same along with the application for stay is filed on August 2, 2010. The I.A. for stay is posted on August 9, 2010. Further, it is also not in dispute that the notices to third parties were issued under section 45 of the VAT Act on July 28, 2010 and July 29, 2010. In the considered view of the court, the ends of justice would be met by directing the KAT to dispose of the application for stay preferably tomorrow (August 5, 2010) and in any case latest by August 6, 2010. In the considered view of the court, the ends of justice would be met by directing the KAT to dispose of the application for stay preferably tomorrow (August 5, 2010) and in any case latest by August 6, 2010. The KAT is directed to advance the Appeal No. 1646 of 2010 from August 9, 2010 to August 5, 2010. Both the petitioner and the respondent shall appear before the KAT on August 5, 2010 at 11.00 a.m. without waiting for any notice from the Tribunal. If any amounts in the meanwhile have come from the third parties to the Commercial Tax Department, pursuant to the notices issued under section 45 of the VAT Act, its retention by the Commercial Tax Department or return to the third parties or refund to the petitioner would depend on the order of the KAT. It is again for the KAT to decide, depending on the facts of the case, as to whether it has to grant an unconditional order or to impose a condition that the petitioner must deposit certain specified percentage of the demanded amounts. These petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.