M/s. WEP Pheripherals Limited v. O/o The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 2nd Floor, nampally, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Between: M/s. WEP Pheripherals Limited, Block-H-1, 4th Floor Surya Towers, S.D. Road Secunderabad-500 003. rep by its Authorised Representative Mr. S. Pradeep, Manager- Finance. ..... PETITIONER
AND 1 The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (CT) (Legal) O/o The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 2nd Floor, nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Panjagutta Division, Nampally Hyderabad 3 The Asst. Commercial Tax Officer, Begumpet, Circle, Hyderabad. 4 The Assistant Commissioner (CT)-II, Begumpet Division, Hyderabad ..... RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order CCT's ref. LIII (2)/126/2008, dated 04-03-2008 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, unjustified and contrary to provisions of law and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.V.RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y. SOMAYAJULU W.P.No.5871 of 2008
ORDER (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao):
Operative part
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes and at their request, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. The writ petition is filed questioning the order of the first respondent dated 04.03.2008 in rejecting the stay of collection of the disputed interest of Rs.20,542/- connected to the tax period from 2005- 06 and 2006-07 under AP VAT Act, 2005 pending disposal of the main appeal before the appellate authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having regard to the fact that the dispute involved in the instant case is with regard to levy of interest, the appellate authority ought to have granted a blanket stay of collection of disputed interest. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as the appeal is pending before the appellate authority for consideration on merits, with regard to the very liability of the interest, we feel that the interest of justice would be met if stay is granted pending disposal of the appeal, subject to deposit of 25% of the liability. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and direct that 25% of the disputed interest shall be paid by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today. For six weeks, 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 appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal expeditiously. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J __________________ C.Y. SOMAYAJULU, J Date: 24.03.2008 Note: Issue order by wire at party’s cost. (B/o.) Isn ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (CT) (Legal) O/o The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 2nd Floor, nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Panjagutta Division, Nampally Hyderabad 3 The Asst. Commercial Tax Officer, Begumpet, Circle, Hyderabad. 4 The Assistant Commissioner (CT)-II, Begumpet Division, Hyderabad
2CCs to the G.P. for Commercial Taxes. 6. 2CD copies.
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?
Constitution of India — art. 226; AP VAT Act, 2005.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 24 Mar 2008. The bench was B PRAKASH RAO, C Y SOMAYAJULU.
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.