Disposed

M/s. K. Raheja It Park (Hyderabad) Priviate Limited, v. The Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

Telangana HC18 Apr 2009WP/7858/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner company challenged Rule 59 of APVAT Rules and impugned orders rejecting a stay on tax collection. Counsel withdrew the constitutional challenge. High Court stayed tax collection pending appeal, conditioned on depositing 50% of disputed tax.

What did the court decide?

Stay of collection of disputed tax pending disposal of appeal, subject to deposit of 50% of disputed tax.

M/s. K. Raheja It Park (Hyderabad) Priviate… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

SATURDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO : 7858 of 2009

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/s. K. Raheja IT Park (Hyderabad) Priviate Limited, Midspace Cyberabad, Survey No. 64 (Part), APIIC Software

¶8

Layout, 1st Floor, Titus Towers, Building No. 10, Madhapur, Hyderabad - 500 081, rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Mr. Ganesh Subuddi.

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Vat Managment Unit I, Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division,

¶13

Hyderabad.

¶14

3 The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶15

4 The Commercial Tax Officer, Malkajigiri Circle, Hyderabad.

¶16

5 The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad.

¶17

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction a) declaring Rule 59 of APVAT Rules as ultravires to Section 2(4) of APVAT Act since it travels beyond the scope of Section 2(4) and contrary to the scheme of the Act and quash the same; b) declare that the impugned order of the 3rd Respondent in CCT's Ref.No.LIII(4)/785/2008 dated 23-1-2009 as illegal, arbitrary and a non speaking order and consequently set aside the same and further direct the 4th Respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the balance demand of Rs.86,04,472/- pursuant to the order of the 1st respondent dated 10.09.2008 for the periods 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 under the APVAT Act, pending disposal of the appeals before the 2nd Respondent, and pass

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.DWARAKANATH

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶21

The Court made the following :

¶22

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶23

WRIT PETITION NO.7858 OF 2009

¶24

ORDER: (Per SK,J)

¶25

The petitioner company was assessed to tax under the provisions of the APVAT Act, 2005, for the period 01.04.2005 to 31.08.2008 by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), VMU-I, Hyderabad (Rural) Division, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the said assessment, the petitioner company preferred a statutory appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad, along with an application seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax. By order dated 21.11.2008 the appellate authority rejected the stay application.

¶26

Against the said order, the petitioner company preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and by order dated 23.01.2009 the revisional authority rejected the revision stating that there was no prima facie case to grant stay of collection of the disputed tax. Hence, this writ petition.

¶27

The petitioner company challenges the validity of Rule 59 of the APVAT Rules on the ground that the same is ultra vires Section 2(4) of the APVAT Act, 2005. However, at the time of hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner company submitted that his client was not desirous of pressing this challenge at the present stage as it’s appeal is still pending consideration before the appellate authority. The learned counsel submitted that his client

¶28

had, during the pendency of the assessment and appeal proceedings, paid a sum of over Rs.1 crore and that there was no justification for the tax authorities to reject the stay pending disposal of the appeal.

¶29

As the petitioner company is not keen on pressing its challenge to the validity of the Rule impugned in this writ petition, we are inclined to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission with the following order. There shall be stay of the collection of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner company before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 50% (fifty percent) of the disputed tax with the Commercial Tax Officer, Madhapur Circle, Hyderabad, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Any amount(s) paid by the petitioner company towards the disputed tax liability shall be given due credit in computing the amount to be deposited under this order.

¶30

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of at the stage of admission. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

___________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 18^th April, 2009. VGSR

M/s. K. Raheja It Park (Hyderabad) Priviate Limited, v. The Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. K. Raheja It Park (Hyderabad) Priviate Limited, v. The Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

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

KOmmi Lakshmaiah Naidu Vs The Election Commission of India., rep.by its Secretary

The Management of Blue Star Limited Vs v.Mallikarjuna Rao

G.Nalini Vs The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Secunderabad

Syndicate Bank, rep.by its Authorised officer Vs Mr.v.N.Subhash Chandra Bose

Krishna Bhoopal Vs District Consumer Forum

Achanta Ramanadham (Died) Vs Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal