TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 898X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt is clearly in contravention of the stay order passed by the first appellate authority in favour of the petitioner; and is in flagrant disregard of the same, and, therefore, cannot be sustained. It is quite perturbing to note that despite the first appellate authority having stayed further recovery, not only did the second respondent not act on his own and revoke the instructions issued to the RTO authorities and lift the attachment over the land, even after the petitioner drew his attention to the order and made a request to revoke the instructions and attachment, the second respondent in flagrant disobedience of the order passed by the first appellate authority insisted upon continuing with the same, which displays lack of respect fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Areas Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Entry Tax Act ) and hence, did not discharge liability under the said Act. Search proceedings came to be conducted at the premises of the petitioner on 6.4.2019, on which date, the petitioner was not available as he was out of station. Thereafter, the assessment proceedings came to be initiated under the Entry Tax Act which culminated into assessment orders under the Entry Tax Act for the years 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2016-17 imposing entry tax along with penalty on purchase of excavators. Thereafter, as some of the submissions of the petitioner were not dealt with in the orders, rectified orders came to be passed wherein further penalty came to be imposed upon the petitioner. On 20.5.2017, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he second respondent informed the petitioner that since the appeals of the petitioner are still pending, the earlier instructions issued to the RTO authorities as well as the attachment of land will continue, which has given rise to the present petition. 6. Mr. Uchit Sheth, learned advocate for the petitioner assailed the impugned communication by submitting that when the first appellate authority has granted stay against further recovery, the second respondent was not justified in continuing the instructions issued to the RTO authorities to restrain transfer of any vehicle of the petitioner as well as continuing the attachment on the agricultural land of the petitioner. 7. This court has also heard Mr. Utkar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, even after the petitioner drew his attention to the order and made a request to revoke the instructions and attachment, the second respondent in flagrant disobedience of the order passed by the first appellate authority insisted upon continuing with the same, which displays lack of respect for the order passed by the first appellate authority. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned communication dated 11.3.2019 (AnnexureA to the petition) issued by the second respondent is hereby quashed and set aside. The instruction issued by the second respondent to the RTO authorities, to restrain the transfer of any vehicle of the petitioner, stands revoked. The attachment of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
