- (1.) BY Court Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's revision is pending before the Revisional authority, wherein the demand raised by Revenue has been challenged. However, a notice for recovery dated 22.5.2012 has been served upon the petitioner on 8th June, 2012, asking the petitioner to deposit the demand amount by 15th June, 2012 i.e., today, failing which the petitioner's bank account will be seized. The revenue involved is Rs.59,98,490.05 as per Annexure7, the demand notice dated 22.5.2012.
(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is suffering great hardship because of the non availability of the revisional authority, as the revisional authority has been transferred and petitioner's application for taking up of the application for interim relief is pending for which the petitioner has moved application for early hearing also, but it could not be taken up because of the transfer of the revisional authority. Learned counsel for the State also submitted that the officer, the revisional authority, is relieving today. However, the learned counsel for the State has no knowledge when the revisional authority will join. In these facts and circumstance, we are left with no option but to stay the recovery proceeding initiated, in pursuance of the impugned order, which is impugned in the revision petition and in pursuance of the demand notice dated 22.5.2012 till the petitioner's application for interim relief is decided by the revisional authority.
(3.) THE writ petition of the petitioner is disposed of. However, this order may not be treated any decision on the merit of the case of the writ petition, even for the purpose of grant of interim relief.;