Telangana High Court
WP/26532/2006 of M/s.EMAMI LIMITED,5-5-184, Vanasthalipuram,Hyderabad Vs Additional Commissioner (CT)(Legal), office of the on 22 December 2006
COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE J.CHELAMESWAR and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.APPA RAO WRIT PETITION NO :26532 of 2006 Dated: 22nd December 2006. Between: M/s. Emami Limited 5-5-184, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Additional Commissioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUREANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE J.CHELAMESWARand
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.APPA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO :26532 of 2006
Dated: 22ndDecember 2006.
Between:M/s. Emami Limited 5-5-184, Vanasthalipuram,Hyderabad.
AND
..... PETITIONER
Additional Commissioner (CT)(Legal), Office of theCommissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh,Hyderabad and others.
.....RESPONDENTS
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J.CHELAMESWARAND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO
W.P.NO.26532 OF 2006
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.
ORAL ORDER:
(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice J.Chelameswar)
The petitioner is a limited Company carrying onbusiness in the manufacture and sale of ayurvedicdrugs as well as cosmetics. It is a registered dealerboth under the A.P.G.S.T. and C.S.T Acts on the rollsof the 2[nd] respondent. For the period commencingfrom October 2004 to January 2005, the petitionerfiled monthly returns claiming that one of its products,called Navratan Oil, falls under Entry-37 of the I Schedule to the A.P.G.S.T. Act and therefore,taxable @ 10%. But, the 2[nd] respondent did notagree with the petitioner and made a provisionalassessment on 02-03-2005, holding the saidcommodity to be cosmetic and taxable @ 20%. Though it is not expressly stated in the affidavit filedin support of the writ petition that the petitioner carriedthe matter in appeal, by necessary inference from thepleadings at Paragraph No.4, we have to state thatthe order was challenged in an appeal before theAppellate Deputy Commissioner. Along with theappeal, it appears that the petitioner filed anapplication for stay of the recovery of the disputedtax. The said application was dismissed by theAppellate Deputy Commissioner, by his order dated 22-03-2005. Eventually, the appeal itself came to bedismissed by an order dated 30-03-2005. The petitioner carried the matter in afurther appeal before the Sales Tax AppellateTribunal. In view of the dismissal of the stayapplication once, during the pendency of the firstappeal, the petitioner approached this Court by way ofwrit petition, without moving an application before the1[st] respondent.
Heard the learned Government Pleader forCommercial Tax.
In the circumstances, we are of the opinion thatthe matter can be disposed of at this stage directingthe respondents not to take any coercive steps forcollection of the disputed tax, during the pendency ofthe abovementioned appeal before the Tribunal, oncondition of the petitioner depositing 50% of thedisputed tax within a period of six weeks from today. The amount already paid, if any, towards the disputedtax, shall be given credit to while computing theabovementioned 50% deposit.
Accordingly, with the above direction, the writpetition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
----------------------J.Chelameswar, J
22[nd] December 2006mrk
------------------D.Appa Rao, J