AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Petitioner filed appeals before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short ''KAT'') invoking Section 14 of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (for short Act), whence, by order dated 12.01.2015, the KAT granted interim stay of the orders impugned therein including the notices of demand, subject to providing a bank guarantee. Petitioner having complied with the said order, the proceedings were adjourned periodically since records relating to the assessment were not received, although the first respondent was the custodian of those records and as a result, the appeals could not be heard and disposed of within 180 days from 12.01.2015. The appeals, it is submitted are presently listed on 15.09.2015, awaiting receipt of records.
Sub Section (4) of Section 14 of Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 reads thus:
"(4) Notwithstanding that an appeal has been preferred under Sub-section (1), and notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, tax or any other amount shall be paid in accordance with the assessment or other order made in the case:
Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may, in its discretion, stay payment of one half of tax or other amount disputed, if the appellant makes payment of the other half of the tax or other amount disputed along with the prescribed form of appeal:
Provided further that the Appellate Tribunal shall dispose of such appeal within a period of one hundred eighty days from the date of the order staying proceedings of recovery of one half of tax or other amount and, if such appeal is not so disposed of within the period specified, the order of stay shall stand vacated after the said period and the Appellate Tribunal shall not make any further order staying proceedings of recovery of the said tax or other amount."
Learned Counsel submits that on the expiry of 180 days, the stay order when not extended the first respondent issued the demand notice forthwith on the premise that the stay order was no more in force, hence, this petition.
In similar though not identical circumstances arising out of notification of the Central Board of Excise and Custom stating that the recovery was to be initiated 30 days after filing the appeal and if stay is not granted or after the disposal of stay petition in accordance with the conditions of stay, if any specified, whichever is earlier. This Court in WP Nos. 15460-61/2013 in a case of Rittal India Private Limited v. The Union of India and Others, following the decision of High Court of Bombay in Larsen and Toubro v. Union of India and Others disposed of the petition by order dated 02.04.2013 directing consideration of the application for stay as expeditiously as possible and until such time, the authority was injuncted from enforcing the demand.
In the present facts, supra, undoubtedly, the stay order dated 12.01.2015 continued and remained in force until the expiry of 180 days therefrom, and not extended in view of the second proviso to Section 14(4) of the ''Act'', but for the reasons having bearing on the default of the first respondent in not placing the assessment records for speedy disposal of the appeal within 180 days from 12.01.2015 the date of stay order, resulting in the applicability of the second proviso of Sub-section (4) of Section 14 of the Act.
Since no default or improper acts can be attributed to the petitioner, it is needless to state that ends of justice would be met by continuing the interim order until the disposal of appeal, and a direction to the first respondent to place the assessment records before the KAT as expeditiously as possible.
Petitions are accordingly ordered.