Writ Petition No. 27960 of 2007 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- T MEENA KUMARI, G ROHINI
Provisions considered
- AP VAT Act, 2005 s. 13
Judgment
8.6.2007 confirmed the order dated 28.9.2005 passed by the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and as the Tribunal has no power to grant stay, the petitioner filed a stay petition before the 1st respondent for stay of collection of disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent without appreciating the detailed grounds raised by the petitioner in support of the contention that the input tax credit was rightly taken in respect of the goods purchased from local VAT registered dealers basing on the tax invoices issued by the said dealers, passed the order dated 20.11.2007 rejecting the stay petition filed by the petitioner for stay of collection of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for the respondents. The controversy is that pending an appeal, application for stay was dismissed by the Competent Authority. 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 1/4th of the liability. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and direct that 1/4th of the penalty and interest shall be paid by the petitioner within a period of eight 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. T.MEENA KUMARI, J. G.ROHINI, J. December 27, 2007 Note: C.C. in four days. (BO) MVB
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.