ORDER : J.B.PARDIWALA, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Chintan Dave, the learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 4. Mr.Parth Bhatt, learned counsel waive service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.5. 2. By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-applicant a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 has prayed for the following relief(s): “32(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling fro the records pertaining to the petitioners case and after going into the validity and legality thereof to quash and set aside the Assessment order dated 31.03.2013 passed by the respondent no.4 and impugned order letter dated 20.11.2018 issued by respondent no.1. (b) That pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, allow the petitioners to operate their banks account bearing no.06300310004647 with respondent no.5. (c) Direct respondents herein, pending the present petition, not to initiate any recovery proceedings; (d) set aside the impugned letter dated 20.11.2018 issued by respondent no.4 to respondent no.5 directing to issue a demand draft/pay order from the available balance in the petitioner's account. (e) Direct the respondent no.3 to pass an order extending the stay pending disposal of appeal. (e) For adinterim relief in terms of prayer (b), (c) and (e) above. (f) For costs of the petition; (g) For such further any other relief as the nature and circumstances of the case may warrant as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.” 3. The facts giving rise to this writ-application may be summarized as under: 3.1 The writ-applicant is registered as a Dealer under the Gujarat Value Added Tax, 2003 (for short the “GVAT Act”) and the Central Sales Tax Act, (for short the “CST Act”). 3.2 The writ-applicant is engaged in providing services to the telecom operators on shared and multiple tenancy basis by way of installing telecom towers which comprises of the shelter, DG sets, air conditioners, electrical goods, DC power system, battery bank etc. 3.3 On 12.05.2010, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Enforcement, Division-I, Ahmedabad (for short the “Enforcement Officer) made a surprise visit to the premises of the writ-applicant. 3.3 On 12.05.2010, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Enforcement, Division-I, Ahmedabad (for short the “Enforcement Officer) made a surprise visit to the premises of the writ-applicant. The Enforcement Officer had an information that the writ-applicant was making unauthorized use of the Form C. The Enforcement Officer accordingly impounded the books of account of the writ-applicant and also directed the writ-applicant to provide certain other documents. 3.4 The respondent no.4 i.e. State Tax Officer (4) initiated the assessment proceedings and ultimately, passed the assessment order dated 31.03.2013 for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 confirming the liability to the extent of (i) Rs.43,15,40,260/under GVAT Act and Rs.73,56,969/under the CST Act along with imposition of penalty; and (ii) Rs.145,94,06,166/under the GVAT Act and Rs. 11,76,275/under the CST Act along with the imposition of penalty. 3.5 It also appears that the writ-applicant being dissatisfied with such assessment order referred to above challenged the same before this Court by filing the Special Civil Application No.9963 of 2013. However, this Court declined to entertain such writ-application on the ground of alternative remedy available to the writ-applicant. The writ-applicant, thereafter, preferred appeals along with the stay applications before the first appellate authority i.e. respondent no.3 challenging the assessment orders for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 dated 31.03.2013. 3.6 It appears that the respondent no.3 directed the writ-applicant to make a pre-deposit of Rs.2,00,000/towards the GVAT liability and Rs.8,00,000/towards the CST liability against the assessment order for the year 2007-08 in addition to providing a bank guarantee of Rs.10,00,000/towards GVAT and Rs.40,00,000/towards the CST. Similarly, for the year 2008-09, the respondent no.3 directed the writ-applicant to make a pre-deposit of Rs.8,00,000/towards the GVAT and Rs.2,00,000/towards the CST in addition to providing a bank guarantee of Rs.40,00,000/towards the GVAT and Rs.10,00,000/under the CST. Thus, in all, the writ-applicant was directed to pay Rs.12,00,000/for the liability under the GVAT and CST along with the bank guarantee of Rs.1,00,00,000/. Subject to the above predeposit, the recovery was stayed. 3.7 It appears from the materials on record that vide order dated 29.06.2013, the writ-applicant was granted stay on further recovery up to 31.07.2013. The hearing of the appeals was concluded and the appeals were transferred for preaudit vide Javak No.1975 & 1976 dated 30.08.2013 for the year 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. 3.7 It appears from the materials on record that vide order dated 29.06.2013, the writ-applicant was granted stay on further recovery up to 31.07.2013. The hearing of the appeals was concluded and the appeals were transferred for preaudit vide Javak No.1975 & 1976 dated 30.08.2013 for the year 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. 3.8 It is the case of the writ-applicant that on every occasion, he requested for extension of the stay order dated 29.06.2013. Many letters were addressed in this regard. The last extension was granted till 30.06.2017. 3.9 Vide letter dated 26.12.2017, the writ-applicant requested the respondent no.3 to further extend the operation of the stay order dated 29.06.2013 till the date of final disposal of the appeal preferred by the writ-applicant. 3.10 It is the case of the writ-applicant that although the predeposit and the bank guarantee was furnished, no extension was granted. It is not in dispute that the appeal preferred by the writ-applicant before the respondent no.3 is still pending. It is also not in dispute that the bank guarantee furnished by the writ-applicant is very much in force. The same has been renewed up to 31.07.2020. 3.11 Despite the above, the respondent no.4 , vide letter dated 20.11.2018, directed the bank i.e. respondent no.5 to issue demand draft/payment order for (i) Rs.43,15,40,259/for the alleged VAT and CST dues for the financial year 2007-08 and (ii) Rs.145,94,06,166/( excluding interest) for the alleged VAT and CST dues for the financial year 2008-09. 4. It is the aforesaid action on the part of the respondent no.4 in issuing such directions to the bank which constrained the writ-applicant to come before this Court with the present writ-application. 5. On 27.11.2018, the coordinate bench of this Court passed following order: “1. Mr. Anand Nainawati, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, by orders dated 20.11.2018, the bank accounts of the petitioner with HDFC Bank Limited at Mumbai have been attached in exercise of powers under section 44 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and that the concerned bank has further been directed to send demand draft payment of VAT/CST of the amount stated in the said orders. Reference was made to the decision of this Court in the case of Vitrag Impex v. State of Gujarat, rendered on 15.12.2017 in Special Civil Application No.21928 of 2017. 2. Reference was made to the decision of this Court in the case of Vitrag Impex v. State of Gujarat, rendered on 15.12.2017 in Special Civil Application No.21928 of 2017. 2. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner, issue NOTICE returnable on 30.11.2018. By way of adinterim relief, the respondent is restrained from withdrawing any amount from the bank accounts of the petitioner, which have been attached by the impugned orders. Direct service is permitted today.” 6. Thereafter, on 01.05.2019, the coordinate bench of this Court passed the following order: “1. Mr. Parth Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, has filed a leave note. 2. S.O to 12.06.2019. Till then, no coercive recovery shall be made against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order dated 31.03.2013. It is clarified that pendency of this petition shall not preclude the appellate authority from deciding the application for extension of stay made by the petitioner.” 7. Thus, by way of adinterim relief, the respondents have been restrained from withdrawing any amount from the bank accounts of the writ-applicant, which have been attached by the impugned orders. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the respondent no.4 could be said to be justified in ordering attachment of the bank accounts of the writ-applicant and in directing the respondent no.5bank to withdraw the amount and credit the same in the government treasury. 9. We fail to understand that although this Court clarified vide order dated 01.05.2019 that the pendency of this petition shall not preclude the appellate authority from deciding the application for extension of stay made by the writ-applicant, yet why no such order has been passed till this date. In fact, by this period of time, the appeal itself could have been heard and disposed of. 10. It is not in dispute that the stay order is of the year 2013. It was extended last up to June 2017. Thereafter, there does not seem to be any extension. 11. It is brought to our notice that later, it was extended up to July 2019. Thereafter, vide letter dated 22.07.2019, a further request was made to the Deputy State Tax Commissioner to extend the stay, however, thereafter, it was not extended. 12. It was extended last up to June 2017. Thereafter, there does not seem to be any extension. 11. It is brought to our notice that later, it was extended up to July 2019. Thereafter, vide letter dated 22.07.2019, a further request was made to the Deputy State Tax Commissioner to extend the stay, however, thereafter, it was not extended. 12. We are of the view that the action on the part of the respondent no.4 in attaching the bank accounts of the writ-applicant pending the appeals before the appellate authority is not justified. The Department has a bank guarantee as on date of Rs.1 crore. 13. We are of the view that the appellate authority should proceed immediately with the hearing of the appeals with an understanding that till the final disposal of the appeals, there shall be no coercive recovery of the amount demanded. Let the appeals be taken up for hearing at the earliest and the same shall be disposed of within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the writ of this order. The order dated 20.11.2018 passed by the State Tax Officer (4), Unit-6, Ahmedabad is quashed and set aside. 14. The writ application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 15. The Registry shall furnish one copy of this order to Mr.Chintan Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader for its onward communication. Direct service is permitted.