Allowed

M/s.First leasing Company of India Limited, v. The Commercial Tax officer

Telangana HC9 Mar 2005WP/4439/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Additional Commissioner's refusal to grant a stay on disputed GST taxes. The High Court quashed the refusal and ordered a stay on recovery of the balance amount pending the disposal of the ongoing appeal.

What did the court decide?

Stay of collection of the balance disputed tax of Rs.6,89,518/- pending disposal of the appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner.

M/s.First leasing Company of India Limited, Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.H.S. ANSARI

¶6

and

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.CH.SURYA RAO

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO : 4439 of 2005

¶9

Between:

¶10

M/s.First leasing Company of India Limited, Hyderabad rep.by its Assistant Vice President, Mr.J.Sathya Kumar.

¶11

..... PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The Commercial Tax officer, Punjagutta Circle,

¶14

Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Additional Commissioner (CT), Legal, Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the order passed by the 3rd Respondent in CCT's Ref.No.LIII(2)/1871/04 dated 16-22005, as arbitrary, contrary to provisions of the APGST Act and unjustified and consequently restrain the 1st Respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax of Rs.6,89,518/- for the assessment year 2000-01, pending disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the 2nd Respondent and pass such other or orders as the Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondents .: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶18

The Court made the following :

¶19

O R D E R (Per TCSR,J)

¶20

Instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.2.2005 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, wherein and whereby he refused to grant stay.

¶21

2. The 1^st respondent assessed the petitioner on the turnover for the year 2000-01 as per Section 5-E of A.P.G.S.T. Act stating that it is a case of purchase within the State of A.P. and release within the State, repelling the contention that it was a case of interstate release, deserving to be exempted. Questioning the said order, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal to 2^nd respondent – Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), where the appeal is pending. Since the accompanied stay petition filed before the 2^nd respondent was dismissed, petitioner approached the 3^rd respondent and under the impugned order, as aforesaid, learned Additional Commissioner rejected the stay.

¶22

3. The questions as to whether it is an interstate sale or sale within the State and whether it can be exempted or not, are disputed questions and are pending adjudication before the 2^nd respondent. Therefore, we are not inclined to enter into the merits in this writ petition. Since the writ petition is directed solely against the rejection of the stay order, the writ petition has to be disposed of working out the equities in between the parties.

¶23

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner represents that substantial demand has already been paid by the petitioner out of Rs.23,88,361/, leaving a balance of Rs.6,89,518/-. In view of the same, the request of the petitioner for grant of stay, in our consideration, shall have to be

¶24

considered and it is not a case where the usual order can be passed by directing the petitioner to deposit fifty per cent of the disputed tax.

¶25

5. In the result the writ petition is allowed and there shall be stay of collection of the balance disputed tax for the year 2000-01 pending disposal of the appeal before the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent shall make an endeavor to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law by passing appropriate orders.

¶26

6. No order as to costs.

M.H.S.ANSARI,J

T.CH.SURYA RAO,J

AVS

DATE:09.03.3005

..... REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Panjagutta Circle, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Panjagutta Division, Hyderabad.

¶36

3 The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, A.P., Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶37

4. 2 CCs to G.P. for Commercial Taxes, A.P. High Court Buildings, (OUT).

¶38

5. 2 CD copies.

M/s.First leasing Company of India Limited, v. The Commercial Tax officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.First leasing Company of India Limited, v. The Commercial Tax officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Nageswara Rao, Vs The District Collector

Sri Venkateshwara Rice Industries, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by

M/s. Sri Vijaya Lakshmi Rice and Flour Mills Vs The Government of A.P. Commercial Tax Dept rep by

All Rice Mill, Durki Village, Birkur Mandal, Vs The Govt. A.P. Food and Agrl.(Mrtg.) Dept.

M/s. Das Mini Colour Lab, Vs the Deputy Commissioner(C.T)

Smt.Mudunuri Sitamahalaxmi, Vs The Commercial Tax officer