9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside - the Stay application filed by the petitioner in the Appeal filed by it before the 3rd respondent is restored to the file of the 3rd respondent - Petition allowed. - Writ Petition No. 11804 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 17-8-2020 - THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD FOR THE PETITIONER : S KRISHNA MURTHY ORDER In this Writ Petition the petitioner has challenged the stay rejection order passed by the 3rd respondent on 30.05.2020 in Appeal No.A/36/19-20 Entertainment Tax vide A.D.C. Order No.1002 for the Assessment period 2010-11 to 2013-14, pending disposal of the Appeal before the 3rd respondent. 2. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company registered under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the said show-cause notice. 9. Thereafter, the 1st respondent passed an Assessment Order in A.A.O.No.2465 dt.30.01.2015 imposing a tax liability of ₹ 5,57,790/- which was paid by the petitioner. 10. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, who is the Commercial Tax Officer under the Telangana VAT Act, 2005, and who was redesignated as Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) consequent on the introduction of the Telangana GST Act, 2017, issued a Revision Show-cause notice dt.28.06.2017 to the petitioner in exercise of powers vested in him under Section 9-A of the Act proposing to revise the assessment order passed by the 1st respondent on the ground that the order passed by the 1st respondent was prejudicial to the State Revenue as per the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led objections on 13.06.2019 to the Revision show-cause notice. 16. The 2nd respondent passed a fresh Revision Order in A.O.No.45858 dt.18.11.2019 for the tax period 2010-11 to 2013-14. 17. This was questioned by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1039 of 2020. But, this Court dismissed the Writ Petition on 18.01.2020 directing the petitioner to avail remedy of appeal available under the statute. 18. The petitioner then filed before the 3rd respondent on 08.02.2020, and also filed along with the appeal, an application seeking stay of collection of disputed tax of ₹ 3,24,51,090/-, pending disposal of the appeal. 19. Several contentions were raised in the Stay application and in the Grounds of Appeal before the 3rd responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds of Appeal, through a cryptic Stay rejection order, rejected the Stay application. 24. Consequent to the rejection of the Stay application through the impugned order dt.30.05.2020 passed by the 3rd respondent which was served on the petitioner on 22.06.2020, an arrears notice dt.09.06.2020 was also served on the petitioner by the 1st respondent asking the petitioner to pay the disputed tax of ₹ 3,24,51,090/- within three (03) days. 25. Having regard to the order passed by this Court in Euphoric Imports and Exports, Hyderabd (1 supra), we are of the opinion that the impugned Stay rejection order dt.30.05.2020 passed by the 3rd respondent deserves to be set aside on the ground of nonconsideration of contentions of petitioner by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
