The writ petition challenging the refusal to grant stay pending appeal before the Tribunal was dismissed. The Court found no perversity in the reasons recorded for the refusal and declined to exercise judicial review as the substantive appeal was pending.
The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
WP No.4925 of 2013
ORDER
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao)
The order of the 2nd respondent declining grant of stay collection of the disputed tax; duly recorded reasons for declining exercise of discretion is challenged in this writ petition.
2. The petitioner is a South Central Railway registered as a dealer under A.P.VAT Act 2005 and CST Act, 1956 and an assessee on the file of thee Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Vijayawada-I Division. The petitioner sold by way of public auction certain scrap material in 2005. Based on declaration in Form “C” submitted by the buyers from other states, petitioner claimed concessional rate of tax under Section 8 (1) of CST Act, 1956. On the basis of the returns filed on the concession rate of tax claimed, an order of assessment was passed on 31-03-2009.
3. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued a show cause notice on 18-04-2011 proposing revision of the assessment on the ground that interstate sales of different varieties of scrap material were not supported by declaration forms and some of which are found to be fake. After due process, the 1st respondent revised the assessment by an order dt. 16-11-2011 and set out a demand for payment of balance tax of Rs.13,47,025/-. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner assessee/assessee preferred an appeal before the STAT, Visakhapatnam Bench. He also applied for stay of collection of the disputed tax pending the appeal to the 2nd respondent. By the order impugned, the 2nd respondent rejected
the said application finding no prima facie case for grant of stay.
4. In the above circumstances, since we find no perversity in the reasons recorded by the 2nd respondent for declining grant of stay, we find no occasion to exercise judicial review. Any observation or analyses of the validity of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is improper since the substantive appeal is pending before the Tribunal.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
____________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
___________________________________ JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO Date :19-02-2013 kvr
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise judicial review on the 2nd respondent's refusal to grant stay while substantive appeal pending before the Tribunal.
South Central Railway
Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Vijayawada-I Division
Tax Matter Appellate Tribunal
GODA RAGHURAM
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
