WP/26495/2006 of M/s. Transmission Corporation of A.P., Limited Vs Commercial Tax Offcer, Khairtabad, Circle, on 22 December 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND SIX

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE J.CHELAMESWARANDTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.APPA RAO

WRIT PETITION Nos.26495 AND 26591 OF 2006

WRIT PETITION No.26495 OF 2006

Between:

M/s.Transmission Corporation of A.P. Limtied,Vidyut Soudha, Khairtabad, Hyderabad,rep. by its Financial Adviser & Chief Controllerof Accounts (A & E) Sri S.Hanmandlu.

AND

..... PETITIONER

Commercial Tax Officer,Khairtabad Circle,Hyderabad, and others.

....RESPONDENTS

WRIT PETITION No.26591 OF 2006

Between:

M/s.Transmission Corporation of A.P. Limtied,Vidyut Soudha, Khairtabad, Hyderabad,rep. by its Financial Adviser & Chief Controllerof Accounts (A & E) Sri S.Hanmandlu.

AND

..... PETITIONER

Commercial Tax Officer,Khairtabad Circle,Hyderabad, and others.

....RESPONDENTS

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICEJ.CHELAMESWARANDTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICED.APPA RAO

WRIT PETITION Nos.26495 AND 26591 OF 2006

C O M M O NO R D E R(Per Sri Justice J.Chelameswar)

Since the petitioners in both the writ petitions are one and thesame, they are being disposed of by this common order.

The petitioner is a ‘Government Company’ within the meaning ofSection 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business oftransmission of power/automic energy and is registered as dealer bothunder the AP VAT Act and CST Act and is also an assessee on the rollsof the first respondent.

For the assessment year 2005-2006, the liability of the petitionercompany towards tax under the APVAT Act came to be provisionallydetermined by an order of the first respondent dated 05.05.2006, andwith reference to the same assessment, the liability of the petitionerunder CST Act came to be determined by an order of the firstrespondent dated 05.05.2006. Aggrieved by the assessments, thepetitioner preferred two appeals before the second respondent. Alongwith the appeals, it has also filed applications seeking stay of recoveryof the disputed tax, penalty and interest levied by the assessingauthority. The second respondent by his order dated 24.07.2006

rejected the said applications. Thereupon, the petitionerunsuccessfully carried the matters in two revisions before the thirdrespondent. The third respondent by his common order dated28.09.2006 rejected the said two revision petitions. Hence, these twowrit petitions.

Heard the learned Government Pleader.

In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the writpetitions can be disposed of at the admission stage itself by directingthe respondents not to take any coercive steps for recovery of thedisputed tax, penalty and interest, which is the subject matter of theabove-mentioned appeals, on condition the petitioner deposits 50% ofthe amount in dispute in each of the appeals, within a period of fourweeks from today. The amount, if any, paid already towards thedisputed tax, penalty and interest, shall be given credit whilecomputing the above-mentioned amount of 50%.

With the above direction, the writ petitions are disposed of.

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

JUSTICE J.CHELAMESWAR

22[ND] DECEMBER, 2006PGS

----------------------------JUSTICE D.APPA RAO

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICEJ.CHELAMESWARANDTHE HON’BLE MR JUSTICED.APPA RAO

WRIT PETITION Nos.26495 AND 26591 OF 2006(Per Sri Justice J.Chelameswar)

22nd DECEMBER, 2006