9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1064X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders passed by the second respondent/Joint Commissioner (CT) (Appeals) in Applications praying for stay of collection of the balance amount of tax, demanded from them, and consequently, to direct the second respondent to dispose of the Appeals filed by the petitioner. 2. Writ Petition No.8015 of 2016 has been filed by Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short, 'CPCL'), seeking for the same prayer, as sought for by the petitioner/IOCL. 3. Since the issue involved in all the Writ Petitions are one and the same, these Writ Petitions are taken up together, and with consent on either side, disposed of by this common order. 4. Heard Mr.C.Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be shown to the petitioners, moreso when the petitioners are State owned Corporations. Now, coming to the first condition, directing the petitioner to pay 25% of the disputed tax, i.e. over and above the pre-deposit amount already effected, it would be beneficial to take into consideration, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of (Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and others) reported in (2008) 17 VST 162 SC. In the said case, the issue was as to whether the sale of superior kerosene oil by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) to another Oil Company, via PDS route, was exempted from sale tax, in terms of the notification issued under the provisions of Orissa Sales Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax, the appellant will pay the tax due with interest in accordance with Orissa Sales Tax Act. 8. The decision rendered in the above referred BPCL case, could be squarely made applicable to the instance cases as well. The only difference, which could be pointed out at this stage, is the nature of transaction, which is the subject matter of dispute. However, this will not, in any manner, alter the decision, since the petitioners herein are also a public sector Company/ Corporation. 9. The details as to what is the amount of tax and penalty demanded from the petitioner; 25 % of the disputed tax paid by the petitioner as pre deposit; now, the amount sought to be demanded from the petitioner, excluding the mandatory deposit of 25%, are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.4,49,21,944/- 5 6295/2016 2010-2011 Rs.14,40,85,817/- 6 6296/2016 2011-2012 Rs.7,12,50,888/- CHENNAI PETROLEUM CORPORATION Sl.No. W.P.No. Assessment Year 25% Demanded Tax 1 8015/2016 2010-2011 Rs.26,23,14,606/- 10. As pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would be inequitable to call upon the public sector company to pre deposit this amount, as it may have other repercussion on the wellbeing of the Company, that too, at this stage, when the Appeal Petitions are pending before the Appellate Authority. That apart, when the Writ Petitions were entertained, interim order was passed on 01.02.2016, directing the respondents not initiate any recovery proceedings against the petitioner. The Appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ught to the notice of this Court that, in the event, the appellant fails in the Appeal, obviously, they have to comply with other conditions while questioning the correctness of the order before the appellate forum i.e., Tribunal. Hence, this Court is inclined to adopt the same observation, as made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred case. Accordingly, the petitioners herein, being public sector companies, and as of now are substantial Companies in a sound financial position, it can discharge its liability at a later date, if need be. With the above observation and direction, the Writ Petitions are partly allowed, as indicated above. 14. In the result, all the Writ Petitions are partly allowed. Consequently, connec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
