2014 (7) TMI 782 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Waiver of pre-deposit - validity of interim order - assessee (respondent) has admittedly remitted 50 per cent as per the direction earlier - revenue contended that, that no further enquiry is necessary in the writ petitions and the same may be disposed of leaving it open to the third respondent-appellate authority to decide the petitioner s appeals in accordance with law. - held that - The validity of the impugned orders in the present case cannot be tested in the light of the well-settled principles reiterated in the above decisions since the statute itself restricted the discretion conferred on respondents 2 and 3. At any rate, as already expressed above, the orders dated August 17, 2013 and September 3, 2013 in our considered opinion cannot be held to be non-speaking orders. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the said orders are illegal and arbitrary is untenable and the same do not warrant interference by this court on any ground whatsoever. - order of respondent No. 2 dated September 3, 2013 granting stay of collection of 50 per cent. of disputed tax shall continue till the appeals are disposed of by respondent No. 3 following due process of law.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the recovery of the entire disputed tax by respondent No. 5.
2. Validity of the order imposing the condition of payment of 50% of the disputed tax while granting stay of recovery.
3. Whether the orders dated August 17, 2013, and September 3, 2013, are non-speaking orders.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the recovery of the entire disputed tax by respondent No. 5:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, was assessed for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11. Aggrieved by the assessment orders, the petitioner filed appeals and stay applications, which were rejected. Respondent No. 5 issued notices demanding payment of the entire tax, and upon non-compliance, instructed the petitioner's bankers to debit the amount. The court observed that the recovery of disputed tax by initiating garnishee proceedings pending disposal of the stay application is unjust, improper, and arbitrary. Consequently, an interim order was passed directing respondent No. 5 to remit 50% of the disputed tax already recovered back to the petitioner's bank account.

2. Validity of the order imposing the condition of payment of 50% of the disputed tax while granting stay of recovery:
The petitioner sought a declaration that the order dated September 3, 2013, imposing the condition of payment of 50% of the disputed tax while granting stay, was arbitrary and illegal. The court examined the statutory power under section 31(3)(a) and (b) of the A.P. VAT Act, which restricts the discretion of the appellate and revisional authorities to grant stay subject to terms and conditions. The court held that the statute itself requires imposing terms and conditions while granting stay and it is not permissible to pass an unconditional order. Therefore, the order of respondent No. 2 was found to be in accordance with the statutory provisions and not arbitrary.

3. Whether the orders dated August 17, 2013, and September 3, 2013, are non-speaking orders:
The petitioner contended that the orders dated August 17, 2013, and September 3, 2013, were non-speaking orders and thus arbitrary. The court reviewed the orders and found that although the reasons were not elaborately stated, they were implicit and sufficient to indicate application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. The court cited relevant case law, including Anwar Ali v. Commissioner of Income-tax and Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan, to emphasize the necessity of reasoned orders. However, it concluded that the impugned orders were not non-speaking and were passed with due consideration of the issues involved.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the orders of respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 were not non-speaking and were in compliance with the statutory provisions. The stay of collection of 50% of the disputed tax granted by respondent No. 2 was to continue until the appeals were disposed of by respondent No. 3. No costs were awarded, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.

← Previous Next →