9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1717 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxStay of collection of the balanced disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal - APVAT Act - transfer of the right to use Set Top Boxes - Held that - As it is not in dispute that this Court, in the case of M/S TATA SKY LIMITED, SRI JAYA LAKSHMI RICE AND GROUNDNUT VERSUS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2016 (4) TMI 1346 - TELANGANA & ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT , had granted stay on condition that the petitioner deposited 25% of the disputed tax; and in as much as, in the present case, the petitioner has already deposited 50% of the disputed tax, we set aside the order passed by the revisinal authority, and direct the respondents not to take any coercive steps to recover the balance 50% of the disputed tax from the petitioner, till the appeal filed by them is finally disposed of by the A.P. VAT Tribunal - petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Rejection of application for grant of stay pending disposal of appeal by A.P. VAT Appellate Tribunal. Analysis: The judgment concerns a writ petition challenging the order of the Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, which rejected the petitioner's application for a stay on the collection of the balanced disputed tax pending the appeal's disposal by the A.P. VAT Tribunal. The petitioner had been assessed for tax on the transfer of the right to use Set Top Boxes for a specific tax period. Initially, the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, leading the petitioner to approach the A.P. VAT Tribunal by depositing 50% of the disputed tax, as required. The petitioner argued that previous similar cases had been granted a stay on payment of 25% of the disputed tax, and since they had already deposited 50%, the rejection was erroneous. On the other hand, the Special Standing Counsel supported the revisional authority's decision. The court noted that in a previous case, a stay was granted on the condition of depositing 25% of the disputed tax, and since the petitioner had already paid 50%, the rejection of their application was unjustified. Consequently, the court set aside the order of the revisional authority and directed that no coercive steps be taken to recover the remaining 50% of the disputed tax until the appeal before the A.P. VAT Tribunal was finally decided. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with pending miscellaneous petitions to stand closed, and no costs were awarded.
|
