Manager-Accounts, Mr.Pratik Kumar Dhar v. Visakhapatnam & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
to be kept in the said account till the appeal is disposed of by the
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
M/s.Essar Constructions (India) Limited, Flat No.203, 2nd Floor, Beange Brindavan Apartments, Krishna Nagar, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam, represented by its Manager-Accounts, Mr.Pratik Kumar Dhar .. Petitioner
And The Commercial Tax Officer, China Waltair, Visakhapatnam and others .. Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.19812 OF 2009
ORDER:
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) The relief sought for in this writ petition is to restrain the first respondent from taking coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax of Rs.93,02,652/- for the assessment period April, 2005 to March, 2006 from the funds of the petitioner, lying with the fourth respondent, till disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Visakhapatnam – second respondent herein. The petitioner, a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, is an assessee on the rolls of the first respondent engaged in execution of works contracts. The first respondent, by order dated
20.05.2009, assessed the petitioner to tax. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 22.06.2009 contending that, since the entire disputed tax related to transit sales, they were not liable to pay the tax assessed by the first respondent. Along with the appeal, they filed an application for stay. The said petition was rejected by the second respondent by his order dated 13.07.2009 aggrieved by which they filed an application before the third respondent. In the meanwhile Garnishee notices dated 07.08.2009 were issued to Dena and ICICI Banks of Visakhapatnam for recovery of the balance disputed tax. Aggrieved by W.P.No.16716 of 2009. The said writ petition was disposed of on the said Garnishee notices, the petitioner
12.08.2009 directing the respondents not to take coercive steps till disposal of the revision petition. The petitioner was directed to maintain a sum of Rs.93,02,652/- in any one of the respondent banks till order were passed by the third respondent. It is the petitioner’s case that they had retained Rs.1.00 crore with State Bank of India, Siripuram Branch, Visakhapatnam in this regard. The revision petition was dismissed by the third respondent on 28.08.2009 questioning which the present writ petition is filed. During the pendency of this writ petition, the second respondent disposed of the main appeal itself by his order dated
Operative part
31.12.2009 aggrieved by which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT) which appeal is still pending as on date. As a precondition for filing the second appeal, the petitioner claims to have deposited 50% of the disputed tax. In the amendment petition, now ordered by us, the petitioner has sought to have the order of the third respondent dated 28.08.2009 quashed. Sri Dwarakanath, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that prayer (a) as amended is not being pressed herein. This Court, by order dated 12.08.2009 in W.P.No.16716 of 2009, directed respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to take coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax on condition that the petitioner retained a sum of Rs.93,02,652/- in any one of the bank. Since the petitioner claims to have set apart Rs.1,00,00,000/- with the fourth respondent herein, we direct the respondents not to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax till disposal of the appeal by the STAT on condition that the said amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/-, lying with the fourth respondent bank, shall not be withdrawn and shall continue to be kept in the said account till the appeal is disposed of by the STAT, and its order is communicated to the fourth respondent. Since Sri S.Dwarakanath, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the matter relates to transit sales, and is covered by several judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, we request the STAT to examine the feasibility of hearing the appeal early. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J
21.03.2011 KH
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: to be kept in the said account till the appeal is disposed of by the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Companies Act, 2013.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 21 Mar 2011. The bench was V V S RAO.
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.