Hindustan Shipyard Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner Ct Int ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 410 AP

        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.1357 OF 2022

M/s. Hindustan Shipyard Limited
(A Government of India Enterprise),
Rep. by its Addl. General Manager (F&A)
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),
   40-5-19/9B, Mogulrajapuram,
   Vijayawada - 520 010.
3. Addl. Commissioner (CT) (Legal),
   O/o. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
   Edupugallu, Kankipadu Mandal,
   Krishna District, A.P.
4. 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 writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of a WRIT of MANDAMUS declaring that:

A. stay revision order in CTD Order No.ACO ZH371221OD80291, Dt.14.12.2021 (Ex.P-9), passed by the 3rd Respondent, under the A.P. VAT Act, 2005, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Sec. 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.27,79,754/- out of the total disputed tax of Rs.48,76,075/-, for the year 2011-12, in pursuance of the 1st Respondent's orders till the disposal of the appeal, in Appeal No.KKD/81/2020-21 pending before the 2nd 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, has already

paid substantial amount of Rs.20,96,321/- viz., 42.99% of the

disputed tax of Rs.48,76,075/-, in spite of which the revisional

authority i.e., respondent no.3 failed to grant stay of collection of

the balance disputed tax of Rs.27,79,754/-, 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 additional documents filed by the

petitioner on 24.01.2022 it reveals that the writ petitioner has paid

Rs.20,96,321/- viz., 42.99% of the disputed tax of Rs.48,76,075/-

and as such it is a fit case to grant stay of collection of the balance

disputed tax of Rs.27,79,754/-, pending first appeal before the

respondent no.2 i.e., the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), or

else the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and hardship by

not being able to withdraw the refund 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.27,79,754/-, pending

first appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT),

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 first appeal pending before the respondent no.2, 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