1. Rule. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. Having regard to the controversy involved in this case, which lies in a very narrow compass, the matter was taken up for final hearing today.

2. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged a letter dated 11.3.2019 (AnnexureA to the petition) issued by the second respondent – State Tax Officer continuing the instructions of restraining transfer of vehicles to RTO authorities and attachment of land.

3. The petitioner is engaged in the business of executing service contracts using earth moving machinery such as excavators. The petitioner purchased excavators from outside the State of Gujarat from time to time for executing service contracts and believed that such excavators were not specified goods for the purpose of the Gujarat Tax on Entry of Specified Goods into Local 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, the petitioner preferred the first appeals challenging such assessment orders along with stay applications. During the pendency of the stay applications, the second respondent proceeded to initiate coercive recovery proceedings against the petitioner and sent intimations to various RTO authorities on 13.9.2017 directing them not to allow the petitioner to transfer any vehicles. The second respondent also attached the agricultural land belonging to the petitioner.

4. Thereafter, the stay applications filed by the petitioner came to be heard by the first appellate authority, pursuant to which, the petitioner made predeposit of 2,00,000/for the year 2013-2014, ₹ 6,82,000/for the year 2015-2016 and ₹ 2,00,000/for the year 2016-2017, based on which, the first appellate authority granted stay against coercive recovery of the impugned dues till 31.8.2019. The stay granted earlier came to be extended from time to time.

5. Despite the stay order being in operation, the second respondent did not revoke the instruction given to the RTO authorities to debar transfer of any vehicles of the petitioner, nor was attachment of the agricultural land withdrawn. The petitioner, therefore, by letter dated 1.3.2019, informed the second respondent that the appellate authority had granted stay order against the recovery action of all the years on part pay and requested him to revoke the recovery proceedings. However, by the impugned order dated 11.3.2019, the 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. Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

8. From the facts noted hereinabove, it is apparent that against the orders of assessment for the years 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2016-17, the petitioner has preferred appeals before the first appellate authority, which after taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had made part payment the entry tax dues, had by an order dated 30.05.2018, granted stay against coercive recovery for remaining dues for all the three years. Such order came to be extended from time to time and continues to operate. In these circumstances, when the first appellate authority has granted stay against the coercive recovery of remaining dues in respect of all three years, the second respondent State Tax Officer could not have continued with the attachment of the agricultural land of the petitioner and the instructions issued to the RTO authorities to restrain transfer of any vehicle of the petitioner. The impugned communication dated 11.3.2019 of the second respondent 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 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 agricultural land of the petitioner also stands revoked.

10. Rule is made absolute accordingly with costs.