Dismissed

M/s. Infinite Shipping and Engineering Pvt.Ltd., v. The Commercial Tax Officer (Fac)

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Sept 2020WP/16180/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the conditional stay of tax collection imposed by the Additional Commissioner under Section 33(6)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh VAT Act, 2005, holding the petitioner cannot question discretion exercised without prior objection.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed at admission stage; no costs; interlocutory applications closed.

M/s. Infinite Shipping and Engin… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶2

AND

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.16180 OF 2020

¶5

ORDER : ( per UDPR, J)

¶6

The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in granting conditional stay of payment of 50% of disputed tax, vide proceedings dated 18.08.2020 for the tax periods 2011-12 to 2014-15 under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 as arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Act and violative of the principles of natural justice and for a consequential order.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Sri C.Sanjeeva Rao and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes representing on behalf of respondents.

¶8

The impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent in his proceedings vide CCT’s Ref No.LII(1)/121/2019, dated 18.08.2020, shows that the 2^nd respondent having found prima facie force in the submission of petitioner/appellant and also observing that the petitioner has already deposited 25% of disputed tax while filing the appeal before the VAT Appellate Tribunal, granted stay of collection of the disputed tax on the condition of petitioner/appellant paying 50% of the disputed tax of ₹17,02,547/- on or before 10.09.2020 including taxes already paid, if any. The said order is now being challenged in this writ petition.

¶9

¶10

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the order of the 2^nd respondent is onerous in view of the present prevailing covid pandemic conditions and therefore, the writ petition may be allowed and the order passed by the 2^nd respondent may be modified by observing that the amount of 25% of the tax already deposited by the petitioner while filing the appeal is sufficient for granting the stay.

¶11

Learned Government Pleader opposed the writ petition submitting that the petitioner cannot question the discretion of the 2^nd respondent exercised under Section 33(6)(a) of Andhra Pradesh VAT Act.

¶12

It is apposite to extract Section 33(6)(a) of Andhra Pradesh VAT Act, 2005, which reads thus:

¶13

“ 33(6)(a): Where a VAT dealer or TOT dealer or any other dealer, objecting to an order passed or proceeding recorded by a Deputy Commissioner under Sections 21 or 32 has preferred an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, the Additional Commissioner, or the Joint Commissioner may, on an application filed by the dealer, subject to such terms and conditions, as he may think fit, order stay of collection of the tax under dispute pending disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal.”

¶14

As can be seen, the above provision clearly demonstrates that granting of stay by imposing suitable terms is within the discretion of the Additional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner. The argument, now, put forth by the petitioner seems to have not been submitted before the 2^nd respondent while granting the stay. Therefore, the petitioner, now, cannot take objection to the terms imposed by the 2^nd

¶15

¶16

respondent while granting the stay and challenge the same. We find absolutely no merits in the writ petition and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs.

¶17

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending for

¶18

consideration, shall stand closed.

¶19

__________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶20

_________________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

¶21

10.09.2020 SS

M/s. Infinite Shipping and Engineering Pvt.Ltd., v. The Commercial Tax Officer (Fac)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Infinite Shipping and Engineering Pvt.Ltd., v. The Commercial Tax Officer (Fac)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abbas Ali Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

T.Sai Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Arasani Balappa, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

L E Mahesh Goud Vs State of Ap