Titled appeal has been preferred by taxpayer calling in question the impugned order dated 8-3- 2012, passed by the learned CIR (A), Faisalabad, wherein taxpayer's plea for grant of stay was rejected.
2. The learned AR submitted that the 'department has passed an illegal Order-in-Original No.11 of 2012, which was assailed before the learned CIR(A) which is still pending adjudication. It is submitted by the learned AR that the taxpayer also filed an application for grant of stay before the learned CIR(A) which was illegally rejected by him. It is contended by the AR that the impugned order for rejection of stay application is illegal and contrary to the provisions of law and also against the settled norms of natural justice. It is asserted by the learned AR that the appellant was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before embracing the adverse order Sand even the viewpoint of the appellant already taken in the memo. Of appeal had not been given any consideration while passing the impugned ex parte order by the learned CIR(A). It is submitted by the learned AR that Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation-FBR and the Officers of Enforcement Division of RTO, Faisalabad, are pressing hard for recovery of the disputed tax demand. It is also, submitted by the AR that the taxpayer has already deposited a sum of Rs.7,159,136 "under protest" through arrear return, hence, deposit of any additional amount at this stage would cause undue hardship to the taxpayer. It is contended by the AR that the recovery of disputed tax demand before hearing of first appeal would amount to denying the statutory 'recognized right of appeal. It is asserted by the AR that the impugned order is against ,the settled principle of administration of justice that before taking coercive measures of recovery of tax, grievance or dispute should be adjudicated by an independent forum. It is, therefore, prayed by the AR for interim injunction against recovery of amount adjudged against the appellant in the impugned order appealed before the learned CIR(A).
3. We have looked into the matter and after due consideration, we are of the considered opinion that the assertions made by the learned AR are quite plausible. If the recovery of tax demand created as a consequence of impugned order-in-original, is not stayed during the pendency of the main appeal of the present appellant before the learned CIR(A), it will obviously cause irreparable loss to it. In this state of affairs it will be quite expedient that the same may be stayed. Accordingly the same is stayed till the disposal of the appeal by the learned CIR(A). The learned CIR(A) is also directed to dispose of the main appeal of the taxpayer within a period of 45-days.
4. Appeal succeeds in the above manner.
C . M. A . /69/Tax(Trib ) .