2019 (9) TMI 235 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Demand of penalty - assessment year 2012-13 - Telangana VAT Act, 2005 - HELD THAT - The petitioner has filed a first appeal as against the penalty and got it dismissed. The petitioner has now gone before the Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal by way of a second appeal. In this process, the petitioner has already paid 50% of the penalty. What is demanded by the impugned notice is the balance 50%. Since the petitioner is already on second appeal and also since he has already paid 50% of the penalty, we are of the considered view that the petitioner deserves stay pending disposal of the appeal - petition is disposed of granting stay of collection of balance of penalty relating to the assessment year 2012-13 till the disposal of the appeal by the Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Arrear notice demanding tax and penalty for two assessment years.
2. Writ petition confined to penalty for the assessment year 2012-13.
3. Stay of collection of balance penalty pending appeal before Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged an arrear notice demanding tax and penalty for two assessment years, specifically focusing on the penalty for the assessment year 2012-13. The petitioner had already filed a first appeal against the penalty, which was dismissed, leading to a second appeal before the Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner had paid 50% of the penalty, and the impugned notice sought the remaining 50%.

2. The High Court, after considering the petitioner's appeal status and partial payment of the penalty, granted a stay on the collection of the balance penalty related to the assessment year 2012-13 until the disposal of the appeal by the Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal. This decision was based on the petitioner's ongoing second appeal process and the fairness of allowing the stay pending the appeal's outcome.

3. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by providing a stay on the collection of the remaining penalty amount, emphasizing that the petitioner deserved this relief while the appeal process was ongoing. The judgment ensured that any related pending miscellaneous petitions would stand dismissed, and no costs were awarded in the matter. The decision aimed to maintain a fair balance between the interests of the taxpayer and the tax authorities during the appeal proceedings.