M/s. A.B.C. Engineering Works, Autonagar, Vijayawada v. General Manager (Finance)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
the petition stands disposed of as allowed to the above extent with no
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- AP VAT Act, 2005 s. 29
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. In view of the protection granted by this Court on 09-04-2009, which is ordered to be continued by virtue of this order, the petition stands disposed of as allowed to the above extent with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH…
Judgment
Cause title
Between: M/s. A.B.C. Engineering Works, Autonagar, Vijayawada, Rep by its Partner Mr. G. Venkateswara Rao ..... PETITIONER
AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Autonagar, Vijayawada. 2 The Deputy Commissioner (CT), No. II Division, Vijayawada. 3 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vijayawada. 4 The Joint Commissioner (CT), Legal, Office of the Commissoner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 5 M/s. Singareni Colleries Ltd. Kothagudem, Rep by its Chief General Manager (Finance) 6 Andhra Bank, Near Series Old Check Post, Vijayawada,. Rep by its Branch Manager, 7 State Bank of India, Patamata, Vijayawada, Rep by its Branch Manager 8 State Bank of India, Manuguru Branch, Kothagudem, Khammam District, Rep by its Branch Manager 9 The Secretary, Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench at Visakhapatnam .....RESPONDENT(S)
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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in directing payment of 50% of the balance disputed tax by 30-3-2009 through the impugned orders dated 06-03-2009 inspite of the fact that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by the order of the Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench in the petitioner's own case in TA No. 4 of 2007 dated 14-12-2007 and the consequential action of the 1st respondent in initiating coercive action through the impugned proceedings dated 31-2-2009 invoking power under Section 29 of the AP VAT Act, 2005 is illegal, arbitrary and high handed and set aside the same and restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax of Rs. 57,84,212/- out of the total disputed tax of Rs. 77,84,212/- for the assessment year 2002-2003 under the APGST Act pending disposal of the appeal before the Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and also direct the Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench at Visakhapatnam to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner expeditiously Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 9:
Sri K. Raji Reddy, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax Counsel for Respondent No. 5:
Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao Counsel for Respondent No.6: Dr.K. Lakshmi Narasimha Counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8: Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee The Court made the following :
ORAL ORDER:
(Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. At the request of the learned advocates, the petition is finally heard today.
The case of the petitioner before this Court is that though the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the STAT’) is pending, the amount of tax which is in dispute is sought to be recovered by using coercive method.
It is pertinent to note that by an order dated 09-04-2009 passed by this Court, the petitioner has been given protection to the effect that upon payment of 50% of the disputed amount of tax, the recovery of tax shall be stayed. It has been submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that the said amount shall be paid within the time prescribed by this Court.
Looking to the facts of the case, it is directed that the protection granted to the petitioner should be continued till the appeal is decided by the STAT. The learned advocate for the petitioner is desires that the STAT should dispose of the appeal at an early date.
If the petitioner is desirous of getting the appeal disposed of at an early date, it would be open to it to file an application making such a request to the STAT and we are sure that if such an application is filed, the STAT shall consider the same in accordance with law.
Operative part
In view of the protection granted by this Court on 09-04-2009, which is ordered to be continued by virtue of this order, the petition stands disposed of as allowed to the above extent with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 23rd April, 2009. Note: Furnish CC in one week. B/O
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: the petition stands disposed of as allowed to the above extent with no
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; AP VAT Act, 2005 — s. 29.
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.