Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Limited, vs The Assistant Commissioner Ct ... on 28 January, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
AND
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B. S. BHANUMATHI
WRIT PETITION No.1467 OF 2022
M/s. Hindustan Shipyard Limited
(A Government of India Enterprise),
Rep. by its Addl. General Manager (Finance)
and Authorized Signatory,
Mr. V. V. R. Ravindra, Gandhigram,
Visakhapatnam, A.P. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (Int. & LTU),
Visakhapatnam Division, Chinagadili,
Visakhapatnam.
2. The Appellate Dy. Commissioner (CT),
Opp. Sidhardha College, Moghalrajapuram,
Vijayawada, A.P.
3. The AP VAT Appellate Tribunal,
Rep. by its Secretary, Chinagadili,
Visakhapatnam.
4. Addl. Commissioner (CT) (Legal),
O/o. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
Edupugallu, Kankipadu Mandal,
Krishna District, A.P.
5. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by Principal Secretary to Government,
Revenue (CT-II) Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Guntur District,
A.P. ... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. A. Sarveswar Row,
Advocate
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Y. N. Vivekananda,
Government Pleader,
Commercial Tax
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 28.01.2022
(Per Hon'ble Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi)
Heard Mr. A. Sarveswar Row, learned counsel for the
petitioner, and Mr. Y. N. Vivekananda, learned Government
Pleader, Commercial Tax, for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has moved the Court for the following relief:
"....to issue a direction or order or writ more
particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any
other appropriate writ declaring that:
A. stay revision order in CTD Order No.ACO
ZH370122OD60028, Dt.05.01.2022 (Ex.P-5), passed by
the 4th Respondent, under the A.P. VAT Act, 2005, as
illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Sections
4(7)()g): 22 and 13 of the Act, and against the principles
of natural justice and set aside the same and
consequently,
B. direct the 1st Respondent and his aegis to
restrain from taking any steps for recovery of the
balance disputed tax of Rs.1,59,47,982/- out of the
total disputed tax of Rs.3,47,39,478/-, for the year
2012-13, in pursuance of the 1st Respondent's orders
till the disposal of the appeal, in T.A.No.103/2021
pending before the 3rd Respondent, and pass such other
order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner, which is a Government of India Enterprise, had already
paid substantial amount of Rs.1,87,91,496/- viz., 54% of the
disputed tax of Rs.3,47,39,478/-, in spite of which the revisional
authority i.e., respondent no.4, while granting stay of collection of
the balance disputed tax of Rs.1,59,47,982/- out of total disputed
tax of Rs.3,47,39,478/-, directed the petitioner to pay 70% of the
disputed tax on or before 19.01.2022 without going into merits of
the matter in dispute in detail.
4. Learned Government Pleader, Commercial Tax, for the
respondents, submitted that the petitioner may be fastened with
liability of depositing some more amount as a condition for grant of
stay of the impugned order.
5. On perusal of the material on record, it reveals that the
writ petitioner has paid Rs.1,87,91,496/- viz., 54% of the disputed
tax of Rs.3,47,49,478/- and as per the directives of the revisional
authority i.e., respondent no.4, dated 05.01.2022, the petitioner
still requires to pay a further sum of Rs.55,26,139/- in compliance
of the condition to deposit 70% of the disputed tax, to make
operational the order of stay of collection of balance disputed tax of
Rs.1,59,47,982/-. Since substantial percentage of the disputed tax
was parted with, it is a fit case to grant stay of collection of the
balance disputed tax of Rs.1,59,47,982/-, pending second appeal
(TA no.103 of 2021) before the respondent no.3 i.e., A.P. VAT
Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam (hereinafter referred to as the
'Appellate Tribunal'), or else the petitioner would be put to
irreparable loss and hardship by not being able to withdraw the
refund of the amount which it is otherwise entitled to.
6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed granting stay of
collection of the balance disputed tax of Rs.1,59,47,982/-,
pending second appeal before the respondent no.3 i.e., Appellate
Tribunal, without imposing any further condition against the
petitioner as the interest of the respondents is duly secured in view
of the fact that the writ petitioner is a Government of India
Enterprise and the chances of disobeying the ultimate result are
far meagre. However, it is clarified that the petitioner shall co-
operate for early disposal of the second appeal, pending before the
respondent no.3 i.e., Appellate Tribunal, without seeking un-
necessary adjournments. No order as to costs.
7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, also stand
disposed of.
_______________________________
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J)
_______________________________
(B. S. BHANUMATHI, J)
Dsh
