- (1.) THIS case is unusual in nature and we are clearly of the opinion that the petitioner has been unnecessarily compelled to seek direction from this Court.
(2.) AGAINST the order of the assessment passed by the Assessing Authority, namely, the Excise and Taxation Officer, Faridabad, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad. It also applied for exemption from payment of tax which is otherwise a condition precedent for hearing of the appeal. This application of the petitioner has been decided by the joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated August 26, 1994, with a direction that the petitioner should deposit the amount of tax in two instalments, first instalment payable on September 6, 1994 and the second one on October 6, 1994. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order of the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) under section 9 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and also applied for the stay of the operation of that order. The petitioner made a request to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Haryana, to hear and decide its appeal before September 6, 1994 and also made a request that till the hearing of the appeal, recovery of the amount of tax be suspended. When the Tribunal did not show its inclination to hear the appeal at an early date, an application dated September 1, 1994, was filed by the counsel for the petitioner once again requesting the Tribunal to hear the matter so that the appeal may not become infructuous. Notwithstanding this application, the Tribunal has fixed the appeal of the petitioner for hearing on October 6, 1994, i. e. , the day on which the second instalment is to be paid by the petitioner for compliance of the order dated August 26, 1994, passed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals ). Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice that on an earlier occasion when similar situation was created, the petitioner had to approach this Court by filing C. W. P. No. 1774 of 1994 and this Court had given direction on the Tribunal to hear and dispose of the petitioner's application with a further direction that till then recovery of tax shall remain stayed. We are of the considered opinion that once the Act framed by the Legislature provides for a remedy of appeal even in interlocutory matters and also provides for making of application for stay, it is imperative for the appellate authority as well as the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal to hear and decide the application for interim stay before the date fixed for payment of tax lapses. By fixing a date subsequent to the last date by which the party is required to deposit the tax, the appellate authority/tribunal cannot render the appeal filed by the aggrieved party infructuous. The appellate authority as well as the Tribunal should remember that they are quasi-judicial body and not the administrative authorities and their functioning must inspire confidence in the public. In this case we are constrained to observe that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal had not acted fairly by fixing the date of hearing as October 6, 1994 and thus, virtually making the appeal of the petitioner infructuous.
(3.) HAVING regard to the fact that earlier also the petitioner had been compelled to come to this Court, we deem it proper to direct the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal to hear and decided the application filed by the petitioner for grant of stay within a period of fifteen days. Till then, the petitioner shall not be required to deposit first instalment of the tax as ordered by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad, vide his order dated August 26, 1994.;