9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... violative of settled principles of law. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of extracting rough granite blocks from the mines, and export the same to other countries. For the Assessment Year 2012-2013, the 1st respondent completed the petitioner's assessment vide proceedings dated 23.3.2017 levying tax @ 14.5% against export sale of granite blocks for want of 'H' Forms. The petitioner filed applications dated 27.2.2018 & 19.11.2019 requesting the authorities to consider H-Forms filed at that point of time. On 21.11.2019, an endorsement came to be made by the Assistant Commissioner, Ongole-I Circle, after taking into consideration the representations made, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner is accepted, it virtually amounts to reopening of the assessment and since it relates to payment of tax, the authority was right in insisting on payment of 12.5% of the disputed tax while admitting the appeal. 5. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the appellate authority was right in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner for want of payment of 12.5% of the disputed tax. In order to appreciate the same, it will be appropriate to extract Section 31(1), 31(2) and 31(3)(a) of A.P. VAT Act and which are as under: "Section 31(1) Any VAT dealer or TOT dealer or any other dealer objecting to any order passed or proceeding recorded by any authority under the provisions of the Act other than an order passed or proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection of balance of the tax under dispute pending disposal of the appeal." 6. From a reading of the above provisions it is clear that any VAT dealer objecting to "any order" passed or proceeding recorded by any authority under the provisions of the Act other than an order passed by Additional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, may within 30 days from the date on which the order or proceeding was served on him, appeal to such authority as may be prescribed. It is to be noted here that the word used is 'any order' passed and not 'order of assessment'. Hence, the argument of the learned Government Pleader that appeal itself may not lie cannot be accepted. The word 'any order' referred to in Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessed by the authority prescribed and the tax admitted by the appellant for the relevant tax period in respect of which appeal is preferred. Here the appeal does not relate to imposing tax for the relevant tax period, but for a different purpose i.e., refusing to accept 'H' Form. Therefore, we are of the view that insisting on payment of 12.5% of difference of tax may not be proper. In other words, as observed by the Division Bench of this Court in WP No. 12362 of 2019, dated 13.9.2019, pre-deposit of the part of the disputed tax is required only when the appeal is filed against the assessment order, and since no tax is quantified under the endorsement, insistence on payment of 12.5% of the disputed tax as a condition precedent for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
