M/s. Gold Fields, Industrial Estate, Nellore v. The Commercial Tax Officer No.II, Nellore
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G ROHINI Writ Petition No. 27070 of 2007 ORDER(per the Hon’ble Mrs. Justice T Meena Kumari): Seeking a writ of mandamus, declaring action of the first respondent in insisting upon for payment of tax though the statutory appeal and stay application pending before the appellate authorities as arbitrary and illegal and to consequently grant stay of collection of balance disputed demand of Rs.87,652/- as against the total disputed demand of Rs. 2,47,862/- for the assessment year 2001-02, pending disposal of the appeal before the second respondent , the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a Partnership concern carrying on business in JCB Parts, JCB machines, tractor parts, motor cycles and parts thereof and harvester parts and is a dealer on the rolls of the first respondent under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and for the assessment year 2001-02 the assessment was completed by the first respondent by proceedings, dated 25-03-2003.
While so, the first respondent suo mottu proposed to revise the assessment and issued notice to the petitioner. The petitioner pursuant to the notice filed detailed objections. But the first respondent without considering the objections of the petitioner confirmed the reassessment by proceedings dated 12-07-2007. The petitioner, aggrieved against the re-assessment proceedings of the 1st respondent, filed appeal before the second respondent and also filed application seeking stay of collection of disputed demand but the second respondent by proceedings dated 180902007 rejected the stay application without considering any contentions of the petitioner. The petitioner also preferred revision application before the 3rd respondent against the orders of the 2nd respondent and the same was numbered as LV(4)809/2007 and heard and reserved for orders by the 3rd respondent on 4.12.2007 and meanwhile the 1st respondent is threatening to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed demand.
The petitioner has paid more than 50% of the disputed tax as the balance payable is Rs.87,652/- as against total disputed demand of Rs.2,47,862/- . It is also stated in the affidavit that the reassessment of the 1st respondent is barred by limitation. Hence the present writ petition. The controversy is that pending an appeal, application for stay was dismissed by the Competent Authority and revision preferred there from was also rejected. We have gone through the record. We feel that the interest of justice would have been met if stay was granted pending Appeal, subject to deposit of 50% of the liability. Therefore, we set aside the order of the Authority and direct that 50% of the disputed demanded amount shall be paid by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. For such period, there shall be an unconditional stay and stay shall continue till disposal of the appeal, provided the amount is deposited within the stipulated time.
The deposit of amount shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in appeal. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ____________________ KUMARI J T MEENA _____________ G ROHINI, J Dt. 18.12.2007
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 18 Dec 2007. The bench was T MEENA KUMARI, G ROHINI.
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.