D R FOODS LIMITED Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to restrain the respondents from making recovery of tax from the petitioner in pursuance of the orders, annexures P1, P2 and P5 passed respectively by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Assessing Authority, Kamal and the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Ambala.

(2.) Shortly stated, the facts of the case are that the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Assessing Authority, Kamal provisionally assessed die petitioner for the period from April 1, 1997 to July 6, 1997 under section 28-B of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act 1973 read with the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. He also imposed penalty upon the petitioner requiring it to pay tax and penalty amounting to Rs. 2,75,473. The petitioner filed appeals against the orders passed by the Assessing Authority. It also applied for grant of exemption from payment of tax and penalty as a condition precedent to the hearing of appeal. By an order dated April 21, 1998 the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Ambala rejected the applications of the petitioner for grant of exemption. This order is subject-matter of appeal which the petitioner has filed before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana along with an application for grant of exemption from payment of tax and penalty.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that even before the decision of the application filed by it for grant of exemption, the respondents have initiated process of recovery of tax and penalty by use of coercive methods. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority [1995] 96 STC 90 and urged that the respondents should not be allowed to forcibly recover the amount of tax and penalty till the decision of the application filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal. Shri Goyal invited our attention to the fact that the Appellate Authority has not been able to hear and decide the application filed by the petitioner for last about 2 months and yet the Assessing Authority has, with the avowed object of effecting recovery of tax and penalty, attached the trolley of the petitioner and threatened it with the closure of business by locking the premises.