WP/40355/2014 of M/s.Zenotech Laboratories Ltd., Vs The State of Telangana, on 30 December 2014

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHYW.P.No.40355 of 2014

ORDER (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)

The proceedings under challenge in this writ petition is theorder of the second respondent dated 17.12.2014 rejecting thepetitioner’s application.

The petitioner is a company registered under the CompaniesAct, 1956 and is engaged in the manufacture and sale ofpharmaceutical products. It is a registered dealer on the rolls of the 5[th]respondent both under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and theAndhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’). Aggrieved by the assessment order, passed by the assessing authorityon 16.12.2013, the petitioner filed an appeal, along with a stayapplication, before the third respondent. The petitioner’s stayapplication was dismissed by the third respondent by his order dated20.09.2014. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner carried the matter inappeal to the second respondent who, by the impugned order, rejectedthe stay application.

Sri V. Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, woulddraw attention of this Court to the impugned order in support of hissubmission that it is bereft of the reasons. On the other hand, Sri J.Anil Kumar, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes,would submit that it was only because the petitioner had failed tosubmit any documentary evidence, was their stay application rejected.

It would be wholly inappropriate for this Court to examine thecontentions, urged by Sri V. Bhaskar Reddy, on merits as thesubstantive appeal is pending adjudication before the thirdrespondent. Suffice it to direct that, till the appeal filed by the petitionerbefore the third respondent is disposed of, the respondents shall nottake any coercive steps to recover the disputed tax under the VAT Act, on condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the disputed tax withinfour weeks from today. The petitioner shall be entitled to be givencredit for the amount already paid in this regard.

Sri V. Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, wouldsubmit that the Joint Commissioner had only rejected the petitioner’sapplication seeking stay of payment of the disputed tax under the VATAct; the 4[th] respondent had, however, issued the notice dated20.12.2014 calling upon the petitioner to pay the disputed penalty;against the order imposing penalty, the petitioner has preferred anappeal to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner along with anapplication seeking stay; and both the appeal and the stay applicationare still pending before the third respondent. On this Court pointing outthat the notice dated 20.12.2014 is not under challenge in this writpetition, learned counsel would seek liberty to approach the authoritiesin this regard. We have not examined the question, whether or not thepetitioner is liable to pay the disputed penalty, as it is not the subjectmatter of this writ petition. It is made clear that this order shall notpreclude the petitioner from availing such remedies, as are available tothem in law, against the notice issued by the assessing authority dated20.12.2014 asking them to pay the amount representing the disputedpenalty.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be noorder as to costs. Miscellaneous petition, if any, pending in this writpetitions shall stand closed.

______________________________

RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J

30[th] December, 2014sjsj

_____________________________

M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J