@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The matter has been listed in view of the permission sought by the counsel for the petitioner with a prayer
for interim relief as the petitioner''s bank account has been attached by the order dated 21st January, 2013 passed in view of demand notice u/s 46
of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
2. The petitioner''s contention is that the petitioner preferred an appeal, and the revision in two different matters, challenging the demand which is
against the petitioner amounting to Rs. 28,46;913/- and Rs. 18,05,932/-. In the petitioner''s appeal and revision, no date has been fixed and so far
as conduct of the petitioner is concerned, orders were passed on 29th November, 2012 in first matter and that order was served upon the
petitioner on 7th December, 2012 and the petitioner preferred appeal on 7th January, 2013 and no date was fixed by the appellate authority and
on 23rd December, 2012, notice was issued asking the petitioner to make payment of demand of Rs. 28,46,913/- by 19th January, 2013.
Similarly, notice was issued for another demand. The petitioner moved an application before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand
and revisional authority on 12th January, 2013 itself for early fixation of hearing of the revision petition alongwith application for stay. No date was
fixed by the revisional authority or by the appellate authority in the respective matters and on 21st January, 2013, the petitioner''s bank account has
been attached on account of demand of Rs. 46,52,845/-. it is submitted that the petitioner is having approximately one thousand employees in it''s
all units and the petitioner is not running away from the clutches of the Revenue in any manner.
3. Looking to the petitioner''s establishment, yet in this way the petitioner''s bank account has been attached affecting large number of employees.
It is submitted that in other matters also, this Court has already taken note of fact that the revenue and appellate authority are not fixing the date of
hearing and even after several years, no recovery is effected and all of a sudden, in old matters, attachment orders are issued.
4. Be that as it may be, learned counsel for the respondents-revenue submitted that the amount involved is not a big amount for the petitioner, and
therefore, he may be asked to deposit the said amount and thereafter, the appeal and revision can be decided by the revisional and appellate
authority on the date fixed by that Court.
5. We are of the considered opinion that it is a case where the appellate and revisional authority may be directed to hear the matter expeditiously
and the revisional and appellate authority may hear and decide the appeal of the petitioner by or before 28th February, 2013 and if it is not
possible to decide the revision or appeal, the interim prayer may be considered and that order may be passed before 28th February, 2013.
6. In view of the above reasons, the order dated 21st January, 2013 is quashed and set aside with a liberty to the same authority to pass
appropriate order, after decision of the said petitions or the revision or the appeal, as the case may be, after awaiting for the statutory period of
revision before the tribunal.
7. The writ petition of the petitioner is disposed of accordingly. Copy of the order be given to the counsel for the parties.
