IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 1050 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 23.01.2008 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. .... PETITIONER Versus The State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Kashmiri Lal Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) The petitioner Corporation has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing direction to respondent No.2, the Excise & Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Panipat, not to recover the amount of tax, as per notice dated 23.11.2007 (Annexure P-4) and to stay further proceedings of the fresh notice dated 14.1.2008 (Annexure P-7). We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Undisputedly, in this case, after the order of remand passed by the Appellate Authority, the assessing authority framed the fresh assessment and vide order dated 23.11.2007 raised the demand after rejecting the plea CWP No. 1050 of 2008 -2- taken by the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) cum Appellate Authority, Rohtak, on 14.1.2008 along with an application for stay. The appeal as well as the application for stay are still pending for consideration. Now, it is the prayer of the petitioner that the impugned order/show cause notice for recovery of the disputed amount be stayed till the disposal of the appeal. We are unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the application for stay has been just filed on 14.1.2008, which is still pending consideration and it appears that the petitioner has not made any effort to get the said application listed for hearing, therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. Dismissed. However, keeping in view the interest of justice, we direct the Appellate Authority, where the application for stay is pending, to decide the said application in accordance with law, after hearing counsel for the petitioner, within a period of 15 days. Dasti on payment. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE January 23, 2008 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ndj JUDGE