Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, rep. By its Manager (Finance & Accounts) M. Srinivasa Rao, Tiruverembur v. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tiruverembur Assessment Circle, Trichy
2016-01-25
K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
body2016
DigiLaw.ai
ORDER : 1. Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents and by consent of parties, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned notice, dated 18.01.2016 calling upon the petitioner to pay the tax without any further delay by specifically stating that action will be initiated under Section 42 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, if the tax is not paid. 3. Mr.N.Inbarajan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned proceedings is issued only on the reason that the stay granted by the appellate authority pending appeal challenging the assessment proceedings, has expired on 15.01.2016, without considering the fact that the appellate authority reserved the appeal for orders on 13.01.2016 and that the petitioner has also filed application seeking extension of stay on 11.01.2016 and the said application is still pending. Therefore, he submitted that the issuance of the present impugned demand notice further with threat of action under the Revenue Recovery Act is an out come of total non-application of mind and cannot be sustained. 4. When the matter was taken up for admission in the forenoon, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents sought a short time to get instructions to verify the facts and with regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Accordingly, he was grated time and the matter is again taken up in the afternoon for further hearing. 5. Now, the learned Additional Government Pleader, based on the instructions, submitted that it is true that the appellate authority has reserved orders in the appeal on 13.01.2016 and that the application filed by the petitioner on 11.01.2016 seeking extension of interim order is also still pending before the appellate authority. He further submitted that the appellate authority will pass final orders in the appeal itself within a period of two weeks and in the meantime, the respondents will not give effect to the impugned notice. 6. The above submission is recorded. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to proceed against the petitioner till the appeal is disposed of by the second respondent or till an order is passed in the petition seeking extension of stay, filed before him. No costs.
6. The above submission is recorded. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to proceed against the petitioner till the appeal is disposed of by the second respondent or till an order is passed in the petition seeking extension of stay, filed before him. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.