Telangana High Court
WP/26697/2006 of M/s. Vasavi Industries Ltd., Vs The Commercial TAx Officer, on 27 December 2006
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND SIX PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J.CHELAMESWAR and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO W.P.No. 26697 of 2006 Between:- M/s. Vasavi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND SIX
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J.CHELAMESWARand THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO
W.P.No. 26697 of 2006
Between:-
M/s. Vasavi Industries Limited,
Rajam.
..Petitioner
And
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The Commercial Tax Officer,
Rajam Circle, Srikakulam Distraictand two others.and two others.
..Respondents
ORDER (Per JC,J) :
This writ petition is filed with a prayer as follows:
“To restrain the 1[st] respondent from taking anycoercive steps for payment of disputed penalty and interestof Rs.2,63,100/- & Rs.1,315/- for the tax period June &July, 2005 under the APVAT Act, pending disposal of theappeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.”
2. The petitioner is a limited company and registered dealer on the rolls of the 1[st] respondent-The Commercial Tax Officer,Rajam Circle, Srikakulam District, under the A.P. VAT Act (forshort ‘the Act’) carrying on the business in the sale of iron andsteel. The liability of the petitioner under the Act for the months ofJune and July, 2005 came to be determined by the 1[st] respondentby his order dated 25-05-2006. The respondents disallowed theclaim of the petitioner of input tax credit on various grounds. Thedetails of which may not be necessary for the present purpose. Consequently they came to the conclusion that there is an evasionof tax. The respondents, therefore, levied penalty for the taxperiod June & July, 2005 and also chose to impose interest.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the 2[nd] respondent-The Appellate DeputyCommissioner (CT), Visakhapatnam Division, Visakhapatnam. The 2[nd] respondent dismissed the appeal by his order dated 09-08-2006. The petitioner carried the matter further appeal beforethe Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The same is said to bepending. Along with the appeal, the petitioner moved anapplication for stay of recovery of penalty and interest. As the Tribunal is not empowered with stay powers, the petitioner filedstay application before the 3[rd]respondent-The JointCommissioner (CT) Legal, Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad,which was heard on 21-11-2006 and it appears, no order has been passed so far on thesaid application. In the mean while, the 1[st] respondentpressurized for payment of disputed tax amount.
5. Admittedly, the entire amount of tax is paid. It is settledlaw that this Court in DELTA LUBRICANTS v. DEPUTYCOMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, VIJAYAWADA[[1]],opined that acomposite order providing for levy of tax, penalty and imposition ofinterest is illegal.
6. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to disposeof the writ petition at the admission stage directing therespondents not to take any coercive steps for the recovery ofpenalty and interest during the pendency of the appeal before theSales Tax Appellate Tribunal.
7. With the aforementioned direction, the Writ Petition isdisposed of. No costs.
______________________
J.CHELAMESWAR,J
______________________
December 27, 2006 D.APPA RAO,J
KVR
[1](2006) 147 STC 462 (AP)