AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. As the question involved is too trivial and has been concluded by this court in several cases, on the request of the learned counsel we dispose of this writ petition finally.
The petitioner has contended that against an ex parte assessment he preferred an application under Section 30 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act for setting aside the ex parte order but the said application was rejected, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal as well as he also filed an appeal against the ex parte assessment. The petitioner further averred that he has also preferred a waiver application which is also pending.
The main grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the fact that the appeals alongwith waiver application as well as stay application are pending, instead of disposing of the same the opposite parties have started wheel of execution in motion by issuing recovery certificate. In view of the submissions made we are of opinion that till the application for stay is pending the opposite parties should not resorted to recovery proceedings. Hence we direct the appellate authority to pass appropriate order on the stay application as well as waiver application preferred by the petitioner, within one month. The opposite parties may also decide the appeal as well. The petitioner will appear before the appellate authority on 25391 on which date the appellate authority will fix the date for the disposal of the said applications. It may also fix the date for final disposal of the appeal and will decide the same if possible within the period indicated above. Till the stay application and waiver application is disposed of the opposite parties will not recover the amount by coercive methods in pursuance of recovery certificates annexure nos. 10 and 11.
With the above observations the writ petition stand disposed of finally.
(Ordered accordingly)