ORDER : SONIA GOKANI, J. 1. The petitioner by way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 19.01.2021 passed by the Respondent No.2 under Section 44 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (‘the GVAT Act’ for the sake of further reference) whereby the bank account of the petitioner with the ICICI Bank numbering 025905004589 has been attached. This according to the petitioner is for recovery of the demand raised for the year 20082009 in relation to one ‘M/s. Arzee International’ name of which was, later on, changed to ‘M/s. Arzee Rags (India) P. Ltd’. 2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 which is engaged in the business of importing, exporting old clothes and of reselling the same within and outside the State. It is having a SEZ Unit (Special Economic Zone unit). 3. According to the petitioner, M/s. Arzee International was given the Letter of Allotment (LOA) on 04.06.2003 in Kandla Special Economic Zone (KASEZ) and that changed in to M/s. Arzee Rags (India) P. Ltd. later on for its failing to achieve positive Net Foreign Exchange as stipulated. The concerned company applied for cancellation of registration certificate on 01.01.2010 and the same has been cancelled from 01.10.2010. 4. The petitioner approached the Kandala SEZ for taking over the LOA of M/s. Arzee Rags (India) P. Ltd. and the same has been allotted to the petitioner. It has urged that the petitioner has no direct or indirect connection with M/s. Arzee Rags (India) P. Ltd. and it is also not dealt with the said concerned at the relevant point of time. 5. The assessment of M/s. Arzee Rags (India) P. Ltd. for the year 200809 culminated into raising of the total demand to the tune of Rs.31,71,633/on 22.07.2016. Copy of the assessment order was served upon the petitioner by the respondent department. Certain queries were raised in Annual General Audit and necessary documents had been furnished by the petitioner on 17.04.2017 in the form of customs bills, C forms, ledgers of parties, Audit Report and Annual return. 6. The petitioner since was aggrieved by the demand raised by the respondent authority, he carried the assessment order for the year 2008-09 in appeal before the first appellate authority, which decided the matter on 28.09.2020, and granted the relief whereby, the demand was reduced to Rs.18,67,220/. 7. 6. The petitioner since was aggrieved by the demand raised by the respondent authority, he carried the assessment order for the year 2008-09 in appeal before the first appellate authority, which decided the matter on 28.09.2020, and granted the relief whereby, the demand was reduced to Rs.18,67,220/. 7. The petitioner also challenged it by way of Second Appeal No.280 of 2020 along with application for stay of demand on 21.10.2020. The said second appeal and application for stay are pending before the authority concerned. 8. The grievance on the part of the petitioner is that the respondent no.2 vide its order dated 19.01.2021 attached the bank account invoking the powers under section 44 of the said Act for the recovery of the demand of Rs.18,67,220/. Request was also made for the early hearing of the second appeal since the matter was not listed for hearing. Through the video conference after a long period, the second appeal eventually came to be listed on 01.02.2021 where the main emphasis was to set aside the liability. The petitioner has raised the serious grievance that due to technical glitches, practically, hearing through the video conference could not take place and on the next day i.e. 02.02.2021, when the request was made to the Tribunal to take up the matter of the petitioner by the learned advocate, it was given to understand that the matter had been adjourned to 15.03.2021. However, on the website of the tribunal, the matter was not shown to have been adjourned to the said date. 9. The aggrieved petitioner is, therefore, before this Court with a grievance that the demand in question when is not justifiable on merits in view of the specific stand taken by the petitioner and also because of set of evidences which has been produced before the authority concerned, the act of respondent of attaching the bank account for the demand of the year 200809, during the pendency of the second appeal as also the request of stay, is wholly an unjustifiable action. Therefore, he has approached this Court with the following prayers: “7. Therefore, he has approached this Court with the following prayers: “7. The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order and be pleased to: (a) quash and setaside the impugned order dated 19.01.21 passed under section 44 of the Act attaching the bank account number 025905004589 held with the ICICI bank (copy annexed herewith and marked hereto as ANNEXURE “A”); (b) direct the Respondents herein not to take any coercive steps towards recovery of demand raised pursuant to passing of the assessment order for the year 200809 till disposal of stay application pending before the tribunal; (c) pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, direct the Respondent to revoke the bank attachment on the bank account number 025905004589 held with the ICICI bank and permit the Petitioner to use the said bank account; (d) pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, direct the Respondents herein not to take any coercive steps towards recovery of demand raised pursuant to passing of the assessment order for the year 2008-09 till disposal of stay application pending before the Tribunal; (e) any other and further relief deemed just and proper be granted in the interest of justice; (f) to provide for the cost of this petition.” 10. We have heard learned senior advocate Mr. Tushar Hemani appearing with learned advocate Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh for the petitioner. He has urged before us that for any liability of M/s. Arzee Rags (India) P. Ltd., the present petitioner could not have been obligated to pay any amount. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the entire difficulty has started because the petitioner had asked for the LOA in Kandala SEZ in the place of M/s. Arzee Rags (India) P. Ltd. otherwise the registration certificate of the petitioner is completely different and it has noting to do with the M/s. Arzee Rags (India) P. Ltd. It has also raised the issue of absence of authority of passing any assessment order on expiry of four years’ period. In respect of the powers exercised of attachment of account under the GVAT Act, the fundamental issue that has been raised before us is that when the second appeal is preferred before the concerned appellate authority and the preparation of every kind has been shown by the present petitioner to proceed with the same, the authority could not have posted the matter in the month of March and having adjourned the matter, it could not have exercised its powers under Section 44 of the GVAT Act, of attaching the account. This would also mean that the petitioner has been grossly non suited. It also would amount to prejudging the issue and defeating the rights of party of taking legal recourse and getting its matter adjudicated. On one hand, the authority questions the very locus of the petitioner to proceed with the litigation as the very competence of the petitioner is questioned so far as the second appeal is concerned and on the other hand, it choses to attach the bank account of the present petitioner. Both the things cannot go together of questioning the legal competence of the petitioner to file a second appeal and to also attach the bank account on the ground of having availed legal succession under the concerned Act. 11. Learned AGP, Mr. Krutik Parikh, appearing for the State on a advance copy being given to the State, has assisted the cause by pointing out to the Court that when the petitioner is already before the concerned authority in a second appeal numbering to 280 of 2020, let the very authority decide the matter on merits. It also can decide as to whether the order of attachment had been properly passed or not. According to him, it is a question of huge amount of tax, which has been avoided by the M/s. Arzee Rags (India) P. Ltd. There is a serious concern and question as to whether management of the present petitioner is the same as that of M/s. Arzee Rags (India) P. Ltd. and therefore, whether the authority concerned would have a statutory right to invoke powers under section 44 to protect the amount and interest of the revenue. No interference according to him, would be desirable and the parties can be relegated to the second appellate authority. No interference according to him, would be desirable and the parties can be relegated to the second appellate authority. Initially, amount aggregating to Rs.31,71,633/had been quantified and the same has been reduced in the first appeal to Rs.18,67,220/. He has taken us through all the proceedings of the second appeal however, he emphatically urged that the merits of the same be not touched by this court at the time of relegating the parties to the appellate authority. He has also urged that there should be some directions to the present petitioner for payment of the amount as per the order of the first appellate authority. 12. Having heard both the sides, at the outset, we would like to make a mention that we have chosen not to enter into the merits of the matter as the parties are before the second appellate authority by way of Second Appeal No. 280 of 2020. The petitioner preferred the said Second Appeal No. 280 of 2020 against the order of the first appellate authority with an application for stay of demand on 21.10.2020. It appears that from 21.10.2020 to 19.01.2021, when impugned order of attachment under Section 44 of the GVAT Act was passed, either the said appeal or application for stay had not come up for hearing. Once the respondent no.2 passed the order of attaching the bank account of the petitioner for the recovery of sum of Rs.18,67,220/, request is moved via Email for early hearing of the application on 21.01.2021. Accordingly, the matter was listed on 01.02.2021. No hearing could take place on 01.02.2021 due to technical reasons as the hearing is through the video conference and on 02.02.2021, when the learned advocate for the petitioner inquired from the tribunal, it was realized that the matter had gone to 15.03.2021. Although, that adjournment date also is not available on the website. The petitioner approached this Court being aggrieved by attaching of the bank account. The second appeal came up for hearing on 15.02.2021 however, on those days the question of competency and maintainability of the appeal had been raised without adjudicating upon the issues which are framed, that had associated continuation of the litigations before this Court which was on 08.02.2021. 13. The second appeal came up for hearing on 15.02.2021 however, on those days the question of competency and maintainability of the appeal had been raised without adjudicating upon the issues which are framed, that had associated continuation of the litigations before this Court which was on 08.02.2021. 13. Noticing on one hand raising of question of competence and maintainability of the second appeal preferred by the present petitioner and on the other hand, attaching of the bank account of the very party, prior to adjudication of this issue raised in an application for the stay of recovery of demand raised pursuant to the attachment order for the year 200809, is an anomaly which appears irreconcilable. This Court would have chosen to entertain this petition, but for the pendency of the second appeal, to which the petitioner himself has taken recourse to and therefore, without entering into the merits, this Court deems it appropriate to relegate the parties to the second appellate authority to decide the application for stay of not to take coercive steps for recovery of demand of the order of the first appellate authority within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We also further direct that what is also to be regarded by the authority concerned is that the petitioner had not been heard before its rights were curtailed and that too, when it was agitating the very issue before the very Tribunal. Without even giving a single opportunity and without attempting adjudication for which the litigant has taken the statutory course under the law, to take recourse to such stringent statutory action would warrant an indulgence. 14. What is noticed in the instant case is that from October 2020, the petitioner is already before the second appellate authority and without deciding his application for the stay, which was filed in October,2020, the second appellate authority on 19.01.2021 has chosen to invoke its powers under section 44 to attach the bank account. Attaching of the bank account would naturally result into serious consequences which many a times would be not possible to be counted or contemplated. There could not have been any order without availing the opportunity in wake of pendency of Appeal and pending adjudication of an application of stay. Attaching of the bank account would naturally result into serious consequences which many a times would be not possible to be counted or contemplated. There could not have been any order without availing the opportunity in wake of pendency of Appeal and pending adjudication of an application of stay. We are ensured at this stage by learned AGP on instructions that within the period of two weeks, at least, the application moved seeking to grant stay would be decided, if not the entire second appeal. 15. While relegating the parties to the respondent Appellate authority, it is directed that the application of stay, if not the entire Appeal, shall be determined on availing due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, within two weeks of the receipt of copy of this order. If the time schedule is not adhered to by the authority concerned, without any delay on the part of the petitioner, the order of attachment impugned here, shall be suspended at the end of two weeks without any requirement of further order and if the authority concerned does not decide the matter within the period of three months, the order of attachment shall stand automatically vacated. As far as possible, hearing shall take place online without insisting on attending the matter physically. 16. None of the findings and observations shall come in the way of either side in agitating the issues before the appellate authority. It shall decide all the aspect keeping itself open and in accordance with law. 17. This Petition is disposed of accordingly, with no order as to cost.