Allowed

M/s. Khazana Jewellery Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner (St) Grade-I and 3 others

Telangana HC18 Apr 2022WP/19085/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashes an order requiring 50% tax deposit for stay under the Telangana VAT Act. The High Court held that 12.5% is the mandatory condition for appeal admission, noting no justification for the higher 50% requirement, and stayed the tax demand pending appeal disposal upon deposit of 50%.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order dated 28.03.2022 directing 50% deposit; direct that if petitioner deposits 50% within 30 days, the tax demand shall remain stayed.

M/s. Khazana Jewellery Private Limited Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE^{SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 19085 O F 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mis. Khazana Jewellery Private^{Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Mr. Kishore} Kumar Jain, 6-3-885/7, Sapphire^{Square, Raj Bhavan Road,Somajiguda,} Hyderabad - 500 082'

¶9

...pETrroNER

¶10

AN D

¶11

1 Additional Commissioner^{(ST) Grade-I, Nampally, Hyderabad.} 2 Assistant Commissioner^{(CT), Audit, Punlagutta Division, Hyderabad.} 3 Appellate Joint Commissioner^{(ST), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad.} 4 State of Telangana, Rep. by^{its Principal Secretaryto Government, Revenue} (CT-ll) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

...RES'ONDENTS

¶13

Petition Under Article 226 of^{lhe Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filed therewith,the High Court maybe} pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate^{writ or orderor} direction,^quashing the order^{of the'1 st Respondent dated 28.03.2022 passed in} CCTs Ref.No.Llll('l)l\3t2122 as^{illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and consequently} restrain the Respondent Authorities^{from taking any coercive steps for recovery} of the disputed demand of Rs.1,20,76 ,4071-^{oul of total disputed demandof} Rs.1,38,01,6121- for the tax^{period Februaryand March, 2O1 4 under the VAT Act,} 2005 till disposal of the appeal before^{the 3rd Respondent.}

¶14

LA.NO:1 OF 2022

¶15

Petition Under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High Court may be pleased to} grant stay of recovery of the demand of Rs.1 ,20,76,4071-^{out of total disputed} demand of Rs.1 ,38,01 ,612t-^{for the tax period February and March, 2014under} the VAT Act, 2005,^{pending disposal} of^{the Writ Petition,as otherwisethe} Petitioner will be^put to severe^{loss and hardship.}

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner :^{SRI.P.KARTHIK RAMANA}

¶17

Counsel forthe Respondents^{: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES} The Court made the^{followingORDER}

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL^BHIryAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE^{SUREPALLINANDA}

¶19

WRIT PETITION No. 19O85 of 2022

¶20

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri^{JusticeUjjal Bhugan)}

¶21

Heard Mr.Karthik Ramana,^{learned counsel for the} petitioner and Mr.K.Raji Reddy,^{learned Senior Standing} Counsel for Commercial^{Taxes for the respondents.}

¶22

Petitioner is aggrieved by^{order dated} 28.03.2022^passed by the^{lst respondent, as the revisional} authority, directing^{petitionerto pay SOoh of the disputed} tax subject to which, stay^{of the assessment orderwas} granted, pending disposal ofthe^appeal.

¶23

Be it stated that the^{petitioner was a dealer} under the Telangana^{Value Added Tax Act, 2OO5 (briefly} referred to hereinafter as^the "IVAT^{Act'), carrying on the} business of^{jewellery. For the tax period February, 2Ol4 to} March, 2014, assessment^{order was passed on 20.O3.2O2O} lerying tax of Rs. 1,38,0^1,608.00.

¶24

Aggrieved by the said^{assessmentorder,} petitioner preferred appeal^{beforethe 3'd respondent, being}

¶25

¶26

¶27

2 UBJ & SN,J !,p 19085_2022

¶28

the appellate authority, under Section 31(1) of the TVAT Act. As a condition precedent for filing appeal, petitioner deposited 12.5o/o of the disputed tax. Petitioner also filed a petition for stay of disputed tax, pending disposal of the appeal. However, by order dated 11.03.2022 appellate authority rejected the stay petition.

¶29

Thereafter, petitioner preferred a revision petition before respondent No.1 under Sub-section (2) of Section 31 of the TVAT Act. By the impugned order dated 2O.O3.2O22, the stay petition was partially allowed by directing that subject to deposit of 50% of the disputed tax within two (2) weeks, there shall be stay of the demand pursuant to the order of assessment order.

¶30

Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed seeking the relief as indicated above.

¶31

Section 31(1) of the TVAT Act deals with appeal to appellate authority. Sub-section (1) enables fiting of such appeal by an aggrieved dea_ler. As per the second proviso thereto, such an appeal shall not be admitted by the appellate authority unless the deater produces proof of payment of tax, penalty, interest or any other amount

¶32

¶33

UB,J & SN,J wp 19085,2022

¶34

admitted to be due^{to the exten t of 12Y"o/o of the disputed} tax, penalty, interest^{or any other amount for the relevant} tax period in^{respectof which the appeal has been} preferred.

¶35

As per Clause^{(a) ofSub-section (3), the} appellate authority^{may, on an application filed by the} appellant and^{subject to furnishingof such securitSr' or on} payment of such^{part of the disputed tax within such time} as may be^{specified, order stay of collectionof balancetax} amount under^{dispute, pending disposalof the appeal'} Clause^(b) thereof^{provides for hling of revisionpetition to} the revisional authority^{against an order passedby the} appellate authority,^{refusing to order stay'}

¶36

g. From a conjoint^{reading of the aforesaid} provisions, what^{is discernible is that for the purpose of} admission of^{appeal before theappellateauthorit5r'} appellant is required^{to deposit l2Vzoh of the disputedtax} etc., and file^{proof thereof beforethe appellateauthority'} Thus, paym ent of^{l2lr%o of the disputedtax is a condition} precedent for admission^{of appeal.}

¶37

¶38

1 UB,J & SN,J wp 19085_2022

¶39

However, for the purpose of stay, the appellate or authority may require furnishing ol such security payment of such part of disputed tax as may be specified, which would be in addition to payment of l2V"o/o of the disputed tax for the purpose of admission of the appeal.

¶40

In the light of the above, we are of the view that rejection of the stay petition by the appellate authority was not justified. When petitioner had approached the revisional authority for stay, the revisional authority granted conditional stay subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax.

¶41

reasons L2. However, we do not lind any good assigned by the revisiona-l authoritSi for imposition of such condition, i.e,, payment of 5O% of the disputed tax which, pimafacie, appears to us to be on the higher side.

¶42

¶43

That being the position and upon thorough consideration of the matter, we set aside the order of respondent No.1 dated 28.03.2022 and direct that if the petitioner further deposits l2/"%o of the disputed tax within a period of thirty (30) days from today, the impugned demand in terms of the assessment order^dated

¶44

UB,J & SN.J v?-t9085 2022

¶45

¶46

¶47

2O.O3.2O2O shall remain stayed till disposal of the appeal

¶48

pending before respondent No.2.

¶49

This disposes of the writ petition. However,

¶50

there shall be no order as to costs.

¶51

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications

¶52

pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶53

¶54

//TRUE COPYII

¶55

SD/-K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR @

¶56

SECTION OFFICER

¶57

¶58

The Additional Commissioner^{(ST)Grade-|, Nampally'Hyderabad'} 2. The Assistant Commissioner^{(CT),Audit, Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad'} a. fne Appeffrte Joint^{Commissibndr (ST)' PunjaguttgDivlstgn, Hyderabad'} +. ff," Pi'ihcipal Secretary^{to Government, Revenue(CT-ll)Department,} Secretariai, State of^{Telangana at Hyderabad.}

¶59

i;; ccs to cp^{FoRCoM-MERCIALTAX, High court for the state of} Telangana at HYderabad. [OUT]

¶60

one ic to snt.i'.rRRTHlk^{RAMANA,Advocate} toPucl

¶61

Two CD CoPies

¶62

B. One spare^coPY

S.A

HIGH COURT

DATE D : 1 810412022

ORDER

I
a o
a()f, 2 s JUt{ 202 c)
\n
-1i..
7.2,
* D t

WP.No.19085 of 2022

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

@rd'*tu

M/s. Khazana Jewellery Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner (St) Grade-I and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Khazana Jewellery Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner (St) Grade-I and 3 others

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

P. PadmavathI Vs Aadhar Housing Finance Ltd.

Smt.B.Suneetha Vs Union Bank of India

Vemula Ravi Kumar Vs Reliance Home Finance Ltd.

Vyshnavi Sai Lakshmi Vs The Union India and 2 others

Smt Mende Sathamma Vs State Bank of India

M/s Navanatha Educational Society Vs The Income Tax Officer