(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Counsel for the petitioner has not been appearing. This matter was notified yesterday, when also he had not appeared before us through the whole day.
The petitioner has approached at a stage when his appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was pending. The Commissioner (Appeals) had insisted on pre-deposit of Rs.15 lakhs for hearing the appeal and for granting stay. This Court, on 25.6.2008, while issuing rule, passed the following order :
"RULE returnable on 28.07.2008.
In view of the statement made in Ground (J) of the petition (page 20) that the petitioner has already deposited Rs.2.50 lakhs towards service tax, there shall be ad-interim stay against operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 16.5.2008 at Annexure-A to the petition. It is, however, clarified that there is no stay against the appellate authority hearing and deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner.
Direct service for respondents No.1 and 2."
From the above order, it emerges that on the statement of the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner had already deposited a sum of Rs.2.50 lakhs towards service tax, impugned order of pre-deposit was stayed. It was, however, clarified that there was no stay against the appellate authority hearing and deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner. After this many years, the appeal would have been, by now, heard and disposed of by the appellate commissioner. In that view of the matter, this petition having become infructuous, is disposed of accordingly, with liberty to apply in case of difficulty. Rule is discharged.
[AKIL KURESHI, J.] [HARSHA DEVANI, J.] parmar*