9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing or refusing an order of stay in the matter of levy and collection of taxes and an order which is silent on consideration of the relevant factors is liable to be set aside. When substantial rights of parties are involved, it is not open to the 1st respondent to (i) mention wrong facts while dealing with stay application filed by the petitioner. (ii) ignore the points urged by the petitioner for seeking stay of collection of tax and (iii) dismiss the say application without giving any valid reasons, why the petitioner is not entitled to grant stay pending appeal before the Telangana State VAT Appellate Tribunal. Petition allowed. - W-P.No.12043 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 13-8-2020 - Honourable Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao And H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... F-Forms. 6. Petitioner contends that this was done by the 2nd respondent under a wrong impression that the said M/s Vidyut Metalics Pvt. Ltd. is situated only at Hyderabad and that the same turnover is to be treated as local sales turnover; and that the 2nd respondent revised the assessment order passed by the 3rd respondent under the AP VAT Act, 2005 vide another ex-parte Revision Order JC.No.155 dt.09.03.2019 and imposed tax on the said turnover of ₹ 7,34,14,150/- by treating the same as local sales. 7. According to the petitioner, M/s Vidyut Metalics Pvt. Ltd. is having branches in Gujarat, Odisha, Chattisgarh, Tamilnadu, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh Maharashtra and Karnataka apart from Hyderabad, and that the turnover of ₹ 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TA.No.289 of 2018 by the Telangana State Vat Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. 12. The 1st respondent however dismissed the stay application vide impugned order ACO.No.86/2020 dt.31.01.2020. 13. Challenging the same, this Writ Petition is filed. 14. Petitioner contends that: (a) the impugned Stay Rejection Order was passed without granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in violation of the principles of natural justice; that the Stay Petition was posted for personal hearing on 30.07.2019, on which date though the Authorized Representative/ Chartered Accountant attended the office of the First Respondent, but the First Respondent was not available and the matter was adjourned to 20.08.2019. On that day, as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Commissioner (CT), IDA, Gandhi Nagar Circle, dated 23-03-2018, the petitioner had approached before him. In fact, the Joint Commissioner had passed Suo Motu Revision Order revising the Assessment Order of the CTO, and against the same the appeal was filed before the Tribunal. Hence, the impugned order was passed on a totally incorrect understanding of the facts of the case. Even the disputed tax mentioned in the impugned order is incorrect. (c) except stating I do not find any valid reason in the grounds of appeal of the appellant-petitioner for stay of collection of disputed tax , the impugned order was passed without any discussion or reasons with regard to the merits of the case and the grounds raised by the petitioner. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tors which are relevant for passing or refusing an order of stay in the matter of levy and collection of taxes and an order which is silent on consideration of the relevant factors is liable to be set aside. 19. When substantial rights of parties are involved, it is not open to the 1st respondent to (i) mention wrong facts while dealing with stay application filed by the petitioner. (ii) ignore the points urged by the petitioner for seeking stay of collection of tax and (iii) dismiss the say application without giving any valid reasons, why the petitioner is not entitled to grant stay pending appeal before the Telangana State VAT Appellate Tribunal. 20. In our opinion, therefore the impugned order cannot be sustained. 21. According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
