Writ Petition No. 26320 of 2007 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
(Per T. Meena Kumari, J) The Writ Petition is filed seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs. 5,80,416/- for the assessment year 2005-2006 under the APVAT Act, 2005 pursuant to the order dated
23.11.2007 passed by the 1st respondent, pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Operative part
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the total liability of demand would be Rs. 5,80,416/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking stay of collection of disputed tax of Rs. 5,80,416/-. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the total amount has been paid, if no stay is granted, the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss. Heard learned Special Standing Counsel Commercial Taxes. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it would suffice if stay is granted subject to payment of 50% of the total amount of disputed tax of Rs. 5,80,416/-. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, stay is granted subject to payment of 50% of the disputed tax of Rs. 5,80,416/- and the same shall be deposited before the 3rd respondent within a period of six weeks from today. It is made clear that if any amount is already paid by the petitioner towards the disputed tax, the same shall be given credit to the 50% of the tax now to be deposited. _______________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J _______________________ G. ROHINI, J
12.12.2007 N.B. C.C. by 20.12.2007 BO CHV
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
APVAT Act, 2005.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.