WP/28147/2008 of M/s. Visaka Industries Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (LTU) on 29 December 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTPRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMand THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.28147 of 2008

Between:

M/s. Visaka Industries Limited "Visaka Towers" 1-8-303/69/3, S.P.Road, Secunderabad-500 003, Rep. by its President (Corporate) andCompany Secretary, Mr. K.V. Soorianarayana

..... PETITIONER

AND

1 The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (LTU) Begumpet Division, Hyderabad.

2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad.

3 The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying thatin the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Courtmay be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction moreparticularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action ofthe 3rd respondent in directing deposit of 50% of the disputed tax forgrant of stay of recovery of the disputed tax pending appeal before the2nd respondent inspite of the fact that the petitioner has fileddeclarations in Form -C & F covering the entire disputed turnoverthrough the proceedings dt. 25-11-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and high-handed and set aside the same and consequently restrain the 1strespondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the balancedisptued tax of Rs. 99,02,608/- from out of the total disputed tax of Rs.1,13,17,266/- pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondentfor the assessment year 2007-2008 under the CST Act.

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

The Court made the following :THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

and

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.28147 of 2008

ORDER:(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram)

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedSpecial Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes for the respondents.

The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of theAPVAT Act, 2005 and CST Act, 1956 and an assessee on the rolls ofthe 1[st] respondent. For the assessment year 2007-08, the petitionerhaving effected certain inter-State sales to registered dealers in otherStates against declarations furnished in Form-C has collected tax @ 3%and remitted the same to the department and also claimed to haveeffected certain stock transfers to its branches in other States claimingexemption under Section 6-A of the CST Act, 1956.

According to the petitioner, the 1[st] respondent finalized theassessment proceedings, dated 15-09-2008, under the provisions ofCST Act, 1956, levying a higher rate of tax on the inter State salesturnover of Asbestos Sheets treating stock transfers as inter-state saleson the ground that the petitioner could not file the declarations in FormsC and F, while rejecting the request for further time for filing thedeclarations, though under Rule 12(7) of the CST (RT) Rules, the 1[st]respondent could extend time for filing the declarations. The petitioner isaggrieved that the assessing authority declined to grant further time forfiling the declarations.

Against the assessment order of the 1[st] respondent, dated 15-09-2008, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2[nd] respondent alongwith an application for grant of stay. The 2[nd] respondent havingdismissed the application for grant of stay, by the proceedings, dated 30-10-2008, the petitioner preferred a revision to the 3[rd] respondent andfiled before the 3[rd] respondent the declarations in Forms C and F

covering the entire disputed turnover and requested for stay pending theappeal. The 3[rd] respondent by an order, dated 25-11-2008, granted staysubject to the condition that the petitioner-company pays 50% of thebalance of the disputed tax within four weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner claims to have paid Rs.5,00,000/- pursuant to theconditional order, dated 25-11-2008 of the 3[rd] respondent on 23-12-2008, but failed to pay the balance due as per the conditional order onaccount of financial constraints and beseeched the 3[rd] respondent forextension of time. The 3[rd] respondent has not responded to theapplication of the petitioner for grant of extension of time and agarnishee order is stated to have been issued by the 1[st] respondent onaccount of the failure of the petitioner to deposit 50% of the tax liability interms of the conditional order passed by the 3[rd] respondent on 25-11-2008. In these circumstances, the petitioner is before this court.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court considers itappropriate to grant extension of time for a period of four weeks fromtoday to enable the petitioner to pay the balance due of the 50% of thedisputed tax, as ordered by the 3[rd] respondent in the proceedings, dated25-11-2008, after taking credit for the amounts already paid pursuant tothe said order of the 3[rd] respondent.

The writ petition is disposed of as above at the stage ofadmission. There shall be no order as to costs.

Date: 29-12-2008Note:Issue C.C. in three days (B/o) Prv ____________________

GODA RAGHURAM, J__________________SANJAY KUMAR, J

To

1.2CCs to2.2CD copiesForm-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}

// TRUE COPY //

..... REGISTRARSECTION OFFICER