LEADAGE ALLOYS INDIA LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO AND DIRECTOR SRI T. ARUN KUMAR Vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (ENFORCEMENT)-8 SOUTH ZONE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent passed the re-assessment order on 15.7.2010 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ('KAT' for short) on 2.0.2010. It has also made an I.A. for stay. The KAT posted the matter to 9.8.2010 for consideration of the petitioner's I.A. for stay. Meanwhile, the respondent has resorted to the recovery proceedings, Issued notices under Section 45 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (VAT Act' for short) to the parties from whom the money Is due to the petitioner.

(2.) Sri R.V. Prasad, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised the challenge to the said notices contending that when the KAT is seized of the matter, the respondent should not precipitate the crisis. He submits that as many as 400 employees are working in the petitioner's foundry.

(3.) He brings to my notice the provisions contained in Section 18A(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, which provides for the filing of the appeal within 60 days from the date on which the order is communicated to a aggrieved person. That, if the coercive recovery proceedings are resorted to even before the expiry of the period of limitation provided by the legislature, the appeal remedy would be rendered nugatory, is the contention of Sri Prasad. He has relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner (CT), Coimbatore and Ors.,2003 17 VST 32, wherein it is held that coercive steps should not be taken for recovery of dues before the expiry of the appeal period; it is further held that the recourse taken by the assessing officer to recover the arrears, in such a hasty manner, even without giving adequate time to the assessee to prefer an appeal, is arbitrary.