Allowed

M/s. Tejaswi Motors Pvt. Ltd, v. The State of Telangan

Telangana HC15 Mar 2017WP/9110/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of two writ petitions filed by dealers aggrieved by the refusal of the Joint Commissioner (CT) to grant an interim stay in VAT appeals. The bench found the outright rejection improper and granted an interim stay subject to an additional pre-deposit of 12.5% of the disputed tax.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay granted on the appeal petitions subject to payment of an additional 12.5% of the disputed tax within four weeks.

M/s. Tejaswi Motors Pvt. Ltd, Vs The State of Telangan — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

¶3

WRIT PETITION Nos.9110 and 9128 of 2017

¶4

COMMON ORDER: (Per VRS,J)

¶5

Aggrieved by the refusal of the Joint Commissioner (CT) to grant an interim stay pending disposal of the regular appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) under the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005, the dealer has come up with the present writ petitions.

¶6

Heard Ms. N. Niyatha, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr. J. Anil Kumar, learned special standing counsel for

¶8

Commercial Taxes (Telangana), takes notice for the respondents.

¶9

In one case, the demand is to the tune of Rs.1,60,00,000/-, and in another case, the demand is to the tune of Rs.84,00,000/-. Admittedly, statutory appeals have been filed within time and also after depositing 12.5% of the disputed tax. Therefore, the rejection of the stay applications outright may not be in order. At the most, the Joint Commissioner (CT) could have directed the petitioner to pay some more money. The rejection of the stay applications would defeat the very object of the statute prescribing a pre-deposit.

¶10

Therefore, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of, granting an interim stay in favour of the petitioner, pending disposal of the regular

¶11

VRS,J & JUD,,J WP No.9110 & 9128 of 2017

¶12

¶13

appeals, subject to the condition that the petitioner pays another amount equivalent to 12.5% of the disputed tax, in addition to the amount of 12.5% already paid. The amount shall be paid, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶14

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the writ petitions shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶15

__________________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J

¶16

______________
J. UMA DEVI, J.
15 th March, 2017
cbs

¶17

VRS,J & JUD,,J WP No.9110 & 9128 of 2017

¶18

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN 

¶20

AND

¶21

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

¶22

Writ Petition Nos. 9110 & 9128 of 2017

(disposed of)

15^th March, 2017

cbs

VRS,J & JUD,,J

WP No.9110 & 9128 of 2017

M/s. Tejaswi Motors Pvt. Ltd, v. The State of Telangan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Tejaswi Motors Pvt. Ltd, v. The State of Telangan

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

Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Vs M/s. Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited

Aashirvad Films, Rep by its Proprietor Sri Rajan Sharma, Vs Union of India

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs M/S Pennar Industries Limited

Bhimanathini Shree Tanooja, Vs The State of Telangana

The Buchireddy Palem Cooperative Rural Bank Ltd., Vs The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

The Vaweru Cooperative Rural Bank Ltd., Vs The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax