Partly allowed

Maytas - Ncc Jv, (a Joint Venture of M/s.Maytas Infra v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Telangana HC16 Apr 2012WP/7721/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a stay order directing payment of 50% of disputed tax, which the petitioner argued was unsustainable after paying over 50% previously. The court modified the order to read payment subject to credit for amounts already paid.

What did the court decide?

The order granting stay modified to include payment of 50% of disputed tax after giving due credit to amounts already paid.

Maytas - Ncc Jv, (a Joint Venture of M/s.Maytas… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.7721 of 2012

Dated:16.04.2012

Between:

MAYTAS – NCC JV

Petitioner

And The Commercial Tax Officer, Jubilee Hills Circle, Mayur Kushal Complex, 7^th Floor, “B” Block, Abids, Hyderabad, And others.

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶10

WRIT PETITION No.7721 of 2012

¶11

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)

¶12

The petitioner company is an assessee on the rolls of the first respondent registered under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. By an assessment dated 13.05.2010 the first respondent determined the under-declared output tax of about Rs.11.14 crores. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.14415 of 2010. The same was disposed of directing

¶13

de novo assessment. In obedience thereto, the first respondent again

¶14

issued the assessment order determining the output tax of about Rs.11.15 crores and disputed tax of Rs.8.72 crores. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), the second respondent herein. The petitioner’s application for stay of collection of disputed tax was denied on 13.12.2011. By that time, the petitioner had paid Rs.5.13 crores towards disputed tax and balance disputed tax remained at about Rs.3.6 crores. Against refusal to stay, the petitioner moved the third respondent for stay. By impugned order dated 02.01.2012 the Additional Commissioner granted stay of collection of disputed tax “subject to payment of 50% of the disputed tax on or before 31.01.2012”.

¶15

The petitioner would contend that as they have already paid Rs.5.13 crores towards the disputed tax, the order of the Additional Commissioner insofar as it directs again to pay 50% is unsustainable.

¶16

This Court adjourned the matter on 20.03.2012. Thereafter, it was listed twice. But, the respondents have not filed the counter affidavit. Be that as it is, the Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes obtained instructions from the third respondent. He would submit that the above italicised words must be construed as 50% of the balance of the disputed tax. We are afraid, we cannot accept the submission.

¶17

It is more often than not, the revisional authority like the Additional Commissioner/Joint Commissioner (CT) or this Court grants stay subject to condition of an assessee paying 50% of the disputed tax or as the case may be. An order like the impugned order herein should also be construed keeping in view the same principle. If it is construed as directing the assessee to pay 50% of the balance of disputed tax in spite of admitted position that they have already paid more than 50% of the disputed tax, it would be rendering the appeal itself futile. The order passed by the appellate/revisional authority or this Court granting stay pending appeal/revision is only to see that the assessee is not put to

¶18

hardship and the revenue is not unnecessarily deprived of atleast the undisputed component of the appeal amount. Applying these principles, we are inclined to accept the submission of the Senior Counsel and modify the impugned order. The same shall be read as “subject to payment of 50% of the disputed tax after giving due credit to the amounts already paid”.

¶19

The Writ Petition as also the W.P.M.P shall stand disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs.

¶20

________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)

¶21

________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)

¶22

16.04.2012 vs

Maytas - Ncc Jv, (a Joint Venture of M/s.Maytas Infra v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maytas - Ncc Jv, (a Joint Venture of M/s.Maytas Infra 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Rohini Footwears, Vs The Vijaya Bank

Mahender Vs The Joint Director ,Pension Payment office

Union of India, rep by Superintendent of Post Offices, Vs Sangam Lachaiah S/o Late Lingaiah

P.V.V. Nageshwar Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Vpl Projects Pvt. Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner (Ct)

The Mothers Integral Educational Society, Vs The Gram Panchayat