9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1889X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could have only considered the prima facie case made out by the assessee for seeking stay of payment of the disputed tax and could not have made observations on the merits of the matter. Such observations would invariably have a prejudicial effect upon the appellate authority who is subordinate in rank to the revisionary authority. We are therefore of the opinion that the impugned order suffers o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al filed by the petitioner concern before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vijayawada. The disputed tax amount relates to the period April 2012 to June, 2016 and arises under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Act of 2005'). A consequential direction was sought by the petitioner concern to the Commercial Tax authorities not to take any coercive s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elief vide order dated 12.04.2018. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner concern filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner (CT), Legal, Andhra Pradesh. Thereupon, the revisionary authority passed the impugned order dated 29.05.2018 refusing to grant stay. Perusal of the said order reflects that the revisionary authority relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Assistant Collector of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority who is subordinate in rank to the revisionary authority. We are therefore of the opinion that the impugned order suffers on counts more than one. When the petitioner concern already paid 12.5% of the disputed tax amount for the purpose of maintaining an appeal as required by law, it would be wholly unjust for the tax authorities to demand the balance of the disputed tax amount notwithstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
