WP/23371/2004 of MICA Fab India Private Limited, Goginenipuram rep by Vs The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal (FAC) on 30 December 2004

1. The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal (FAC), Governmentof A.P., Hyderabad.

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Nellore.

3. Commercial Taxes Officer, Naidupet, Nellore.

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the HighCourt may be pleased to issue an order or direction or writ moreappropriately writ of Mandamus to declare the order passed by the1[st] respondent in his proceedings CCT’s ref. No.LV(i)/2254 to2256/2004 dated 23.10.2004 rejecting the stay pending the appealbefore the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order passed by2[nd] respondent dated 12.4.04 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and setaside the said order and consequently stay the operation of order of2[nd] respondent in his proceedings No.RV.No.26/2003-04/A6 dated12.04.04 pending disposal of appeal before the Sales Tax AppellateTribunal, Hyderabad and pass such other order or orders that theHonourable Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of thecase in the interest of justice.

Counsel for the Petitioner: P.SRIDHAR REDDY.Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAXThe Court made the following :

O R D E R (Per MHSA,J)

Heard the learned counsel for respective parties.

2 . The prayer in the writ petition is with respect to order dated23.10.2004 rejecting stay of collection of disputed tax in threeappeals for three assessment years.

3 . When the matter was moved before the Court on 16.12.2004, itwas noticed that the writ petition is filed only with respect to theassessment year 1999-2000. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to pay deficit court fees and was also directed to bring on record theassessment orders and revisional orders pertaining to three years inrespect whereof the prayer was made by the petitioner.

4. It appears that deficit court fees has been paid and also additionalmaterial papers have been filed by the petitioner.

5. The order under challenge is a common order pertaining to threeassessment years. The prayer was for stay of collection of thedisputed tax arising out of revisional proceedings of the DeputyCommissioner (C.T.), pending disposal of the three appeals filedbefore the learned Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Learned AdditionalCommissioner (C.T.) dismissed the stay application. It is against thatorder that the instant writ petition is filed.

6. We are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition with certainusual orders that are being passed by this Court in similar matters.

7. Accordingly it is directed that if the petitioner deposits fifty per centof the disputed tax for each of the assessment years i.e., 1999-2000,2000-01 and 2001-02, giving credit to the amounts alreadydeposited, the three appeals pending before the learned Sales TaxAppellate Tribunal shall be heard on their own merits without insistingupon the payment of the balance fifty per cent disputed tax in therespective appeals.

8 . It is hereby directed that the fifty per cent of the disputed taxdirected to be deposited as above in respect of each assessmentyear pertaining to the respective appeals, shall be paid by thepetitioner within four weeks from date hereof.

9. With the directions as above, writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

----------------------------

M.H.S.ANSARI,J

-----------------------------

ELIPE DHARMA RAO,J

AVS

DATE:30.12.2004

Note: C.C. on priority basis.

B/O

To

1. The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal (FAC), Governmentof A.P., Hyderabad.of A.P., Hyderabad.

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Nellore.

3. Commercial Taxes Officer, Naidupet, Nellore.

4. Two C.Cs. to G.P. for Commercial Tax, High Court of A.P. Buildings, Hyderabad (O.U.T.).

5. Two C.D. copies.