Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (11) TMI 494

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the tax at Rs.26,82,906/- instead of Rs.44,75,575/- The said authority had granted stay on a condition of deposit of 50% of the tax of Rs.26,82,906/-. The petitioner had paid Rs.6,70,727/- only. It is further stated that the Deputy Commercial Tax Office had issued several notices requesting the petitioner to pay the amounts payable by the petitioner as per the stays granted by this Court, as well as Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), but no amounts have been paid. The 4th respondent also issued notices, but in vain. Since the petitioner failed to pay the entire amount due towards tax and penalty, consequential proceedings came to be initiated. It is further specifically stated in the counter that the revisional authority i.e., Dep .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d Garnishee Notice in Form VAT 206 dt.25.02.2020 in R.C.No.TIN.28498395431/DCTO/SKHT/ 2019-20 issued by the fourth respondent to the fifth respondent Bank for the recovery of tax and penalty amounting to Rs.1,09,38,116/- for the tax period October, 2012 to March, 2014 (APVAT) (Tax and Penalty) as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the interim orders passed by this Hon ble Court and to pass such other order or orders. . 3. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and the material would show that the 1st respondent conducted audit on the petitioner company which resulted in passing of an assessment order in Form VAT 305 dated 18.12.2012 for the tax period September, 2010 to September, 2012. The assessment ord .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted 24.11.2014. The said assessment order again resulted in excess Input Tax Credit of Rs.8,58,301/-. The 3rd respondent, in exercise of revisional powers under Section 32(2) of the APVAT Act, 2005, passed an order, revising the assessment order passed by the 2nd respondent. On 11.01.2018, the 1st respondent has passed an effectual order giving effect to the revision order passed by the 3rd respondent, which resulted in tax due of Rs.18,24,605/-. 6. Questioning the order passed by the revisional authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before APVAT Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and the same is pending consideration. On 09.02.2018, the 1st respondent has passed a revised order under Rule 60 of the APVAT Rules, raising a demand of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... had obtained interim orders both from this Court as well as from the Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal) Vijayawada both on penalty and tax and has not complied with the said interim orders and therefore, directed the petitioner to pay the entire tax and penalty amounting to Rs.1,09,38,116/-. The 4th respondent issued Garnishee Notice under Section 29 of the AP VAT Act vide proceedings in Form 206 dated 25.02.2020 for recovery of Tax and penalty amounting to Rs.1,09,38,116/-. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned Garnishee Notice issued by the 4th respondent is illegal and unsustainable and it is a fit case where the matter should be remanded to the assessing authority for passing order afresh after taking int .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r has not revised the entire orders passed by the assessing authorities and the revised and restricted Input Tax Credit claimed by the petitioner is only based on the revisional orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chittoor. The jurisdiction Commercial Tax Officer is said to have passed the effectual orders and determined the balance tax payable by the petitioner and also levied penalty. 12. Various other circumstances were narrated in the counter to show that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed. The calculation memo, which is said to have been filed, indicates the amount due by the petitioner. 13. In reply affidavit, the petitioner disputed the averments made in the counter. 14. It may not be ne .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates