9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1044X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal by the 2 nd respondent authority, the petitioner choose to challenge the said order by questioning the assessment order also before this Court and thus there was no situation where the petitioner could have made the payment of pre-deposit amount prescribed under the Act. Though the delay in the case of Innovative Systems (2 supra) [ 2015 (2) TMI 1314 - SUPREME COURT ] was of three months from the date of rejection of appeal to the date of payment, it is the principle and ratio laid down that need to be applied and not by comparing the period of delay - In the facts of the present case, since the petitioner had approached this Court upon rejection of the appeal by the 2 nd respondent and this Court having admitted the Writ Petition, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period 2011-12 under the APVAT Act, 2005 and permit the petitioner to make payment of balance pre-deposit of 12.5% of the disputed tax of Rs.68,43,263/- within a period of six weeks and consequently direct the 2 nd respondent to restore the appeal on file for adjudication on merits. 2. Heard Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned Counsel representing Sri G. Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned Special Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, and perused the record. 3. Petitioner contends that it is a registered dealer under the provisions of A.P. VAT Act, 2005 (for short the Act ) on the rolls of Commercial Tax office, Jubilee hills circle and is undertaking execution of works cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Ankamma Trading Co. v. Commissioner (2011) 44 VST 189 (AP) = 2011 SCC OnLine AP 1205 held that the admission of the appeals filed before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner are liable for rejection if payment of admitted tax/12.5% of the disputed tax is made beyond the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the impugned order (i.e., assessment order). 7. Aggrieved by the said order of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the appeal on the ground of non-payment of pre-deposit amount as specified in Section 31 of the Act, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition assailing, firstly the correctness of the assessment order dated 01.10.2013, and alternatively it also sought f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... make the pre-deposit within a period of six weeks, and if this Court so permits, the petitioner in the present Writ Petition would make the pre-deposit for maintaining the appeal filed by it before the 2nd respondent authority in the event of this Court not being inclined to go into the merits to consider the correctness of the order of assessment passed by the 1st respondent authority. 11. Per contra, Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned Special Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 12. Learned Special Standing Counsel by drawing attention of this Court to the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.E. Graphites Private Limited (3 supra) would subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner had filed appeal in time, it is an admitted fact that it did not make payment of pre-deposit of 12.5% of the disputed tax, except the payment of the appeal fee of Rs.1,000/-. Upon rejection of the appeal by the 2 nd respondent authority, the petitioner choose to challenge the said order by questioning the assessment order also before this Court and thus there was no situation where the petitioner could have made the payment of pre-deposit amount prescribed under the Act. 16. This Court, on 17.11.2015, taking note of the fact that the SLP preferred against the decision of this Court in Ankamma Trading Company (1 supra) is pending consideration before the Supreme Court, admitted the present Writ Petition and that is how the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed this Court upon rejection of the appeal by the 2 nd respondent and this Court having admitted the Writ Petition, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit of the ratio decidendi of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Innovative Systems (2 supra) on the ground of lapse of long period. Further, if the period during which the present Writ Petition is pending before this Court is excluded, the period from the date of dismissal/rejection of appeal would not be too long a period as contended by the Special Standing Counsel. 19. Since the Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of assessment which involves factual aspects as also in the alternative, the rejection of the appeal by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
