Rashmi Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. vs The Secretary Department of Finance, The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement), The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) and The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement)

Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the Respondents.

The Petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the 2nd Respondent not to initiate coercive action pursuant to notice issued at Annexure-F dated 27.12.1010 pending disposal of the appeals so also, to issue writ of mandamus directing the 3rd Respondent to dispose of the appeals bearing Nos. KVAT AP 295, 296, 297 and 298 filed on 3.7.2010 as expeditiously as possible and for such other reliefs.

Heard.

According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner has preferred appeals before the 3rd Respondent. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) u/s 39(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 against the orders passed by the 2nd Respondent. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement). Pending disposal of the appeals, the 2nd Respondent authority ought not to have given direction to freeze the account of the Petitioner Company, which amounts to taking away the right and liberty of the Petitioner in challenging the orders passed by him. It is further stated that the matter is kept pending without taking any further steps since July 2010 and in this regard, the Petitioner has sought for issuance of mandamus.

Per contra, the learned Government Pleader contended that the condition precedent is, to seek review of the order by filing an appeal. To prosecute the matter, the Petitioner has to deposit 50% of the amount due and be has not deposited any such amount till now.

On the contention put forth by the learned Government Pleader, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, if the Petitioner is seeking any interim order, then the Petitioner has to deposit 50% of the amount and not otherwise. In the present case, as depositing of the amount dose not arise, the 3rd Respondent be directed to dispose of the matters, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

Since the Petitioner is not seeking any interim order, depositing of 50% of the amount does not arise. Hence, the 3rd Respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law, expeditiously. Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed of.

Learned Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.