Karnataka High Court
M/S Volvo (India) Pvt Ltd vs The Joint Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 10 January, 2012
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
& GQ DL NEERING DARINGIABA FIRGFE CUUKE OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAK DATED THIS THE 10™ DAY OF JANUARY 20:2 . JUST: 'CE BS - PATIL THE DBR VATI 57! FLOOR, Vi .- RESPONDENTS THESE YRIT PETITION 926 AND 927 OF THE co TO nike" TEE Be ) = FILED UNDER ARTICLE TUTION OF INDIA } YING TO RESORT TO COERCIVE "28.2.2011 under ee ERNE EIST EMEP SAE NARNATARA TUG GUUKE OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH € NONER PURSUA T 10 THE D ROTICE DATED 29.10.11 ISSUED BY THE Pe. IL THE Ri, DISPOSES OF THE: APPEALS. ED. BY - THE. ONS | COMING. OR "POR : DAY, TEE COURT OE THE In these writ petitions, petit oner is inst the 2n4 respondent nit 'to resort to c due coercive recovery of the from the petition ier as per the dem id notice dated al by the 29.10.2011 unt "the alspoeal of the ar firat respondent-Joint Ce miseioner of Commerc: oD The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial pt es (Audit-52), VAT Division-5, Kor | (RVAT Act' for short). & $ wore s called in question by A " fig oO" ple. Se ge 3 4 i AMR LH 7 'order 'granted by it has : | circumstances, the pe TREE MENEMEIN EME IMARINZATARA FIT CMWURE UF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CC the petitioner before the first respondent by filing an disputed amount of tax at the time of fling. the : ppeal. Accordingly, the _Appei Late | "Authority, & exercising its discretion as per Section. 62(4) (ec )Q) of B granted al interim order of stay, the KVAT Act a ty pet itione er "here ein furnishi subject to the appe a bank guar arentec fort the > pale lance tee. - Authority could not I08€ off t he app has. no powe rr 'te titioner has approached this the 2°4 respondent action to recover the balance ae) EE MINE ME MARINARA TGP GUURE OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH ¢ « Hot @ eitributable to the petitioner, it is entitle . extension | of int the firet respondent to dispo -. "pending before it as expeditious 3. I have heard learned counsel for .the petitioner and the learned High Court Governmen 4, It cannot be fault in the firat respondent™-nct, disposing 0: eal within 240 days. complied the _Matutory're equi eme 50% of the 2 amount demanded towards $ arantee for ihe > delay in n disposal of the appeal is order till th e petitions disposed & i Bas & @ a Solon <a op ret zg » &E SS wee be page, ais arene te phan, ae b he interim order granted by the firat respondent ae en: ee f3 q FI 8 an @)) io a. a a ery CQ) a % hte d ctitioner s .
peeg | aS 7 ' ong 3s Oe , © Sod we ag e an 7 2 &, » 2 a 4 pe o 3s 7 oO & Na ae os un ~
-sosd o SI o € Qu iount of %36,13, " rn ay a io o fn cy ' 6 9D HOIH VIVIVNUYY dO LUNOD HOIH WIVLVNAVD JO LUNOD HOIN WIVLYNNYY AO INAS Ut wren: Im AR rua wn