2018 (6) TMI 1650 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rejection of grant stay of collection of the disputed tax amount notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal - period April 2012 to September 2016 - Andhra Pradesh VAT Act - HELD THAT - It was not for the revisionary authority to express such an opinion when the appeal filed by the petitioner concern was pending consideration before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner concerned. Such observations would invariably have a prejudicial effect upon the appellate authority who is subordinate in rank to the revisionary authority. The impugned order suffers on counts more than one. When the petitioner concern already paid 12.5% of the disputed tax amount for the purpose of maintaining an appeal as required by law it would be wholly unjust for the tax authorities to demand the balance of the disputed tax amount notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay of collection of disputed tax amount pending appeal.
2. Interpretation of relevant legal provisions.
3. Application of Supreme Court judgment in similar cases.
4. Jurisdiction and authority of revisionary authority.
5. Prejudicial effects of observations made by revisionary authority.
6. Compliance with legal requirements for maintaining an appeal.
7. Relief sought by the petitioner concern.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a registered TOT dealer under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, challenged the refusal of stay of collection of a disputed tax amount by the Additional Commissioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Vijayawada, regarding the tax assessment for the period April 2012 to September 2016. The petitioner sought a direction to prevent coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax amount of Rs. 11,73,493 pending appeal.

2. The petitioner had paid 12.5% of the disputed tax amount as required by law to maintain the appeal. The refusal of stay by the revisionary authority was based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in a specific case. However, the High Court noted that the revisionary authority erred in relying on this judgment without considering the distinguishing factor presented by the petitioner. The High Court emphasized that such reliance could have a prejudicial effect on the appellate authority.

3. The High Court found that the impugned order suffered from multiple deficiencies. It held that demanding the balance of the disputed tax amount during the appeal process, despite the partial payment made by the petitioner, would be unjust. The Court concluded that the tax authorities should not take coercive measures for collection of the balance disputed tax amount until the appeal is disposed of by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner.

4. The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 30.05.2018. It directed the Commercial Tax authorities to refrain from taking coercive measures for tax collection until the appeal process is completed. The Court closed any pending miscellaneous petitions in light of this final order and made no ruling on costs.

This comprehensive analysis addresses the issues raised in the legal judgment, covering the interpretation of legal provisions, application of precedents, jurisdiction of authorities, and the relief granted to the petitioner concern.