9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve granted. The controversy in the present appeal lies within a narrow compass. The appellant is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short, "the Act") and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, "the CST Act"). The present dispute relates to the assessment years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. The State Government in the Commercial Tax Department issued a letter to the Andhra Pradesh Backward Classes Co-operative Finance Corporation Limited (in short, "the Corporation") directing that taxes are to be deducted at a source on the payments made by it to the appellant. It was stipulated that the amounts so deducted at source are to be deposited with the Commercial Tax Department. The Corpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant. Placing reliance on the circular issued by the Deputy Commissioner on behalf of the Commissioner and Commissioner on December 17, 1998 and July 7, 1999 respectively, the appellant requested the sales tax authorities to collect the amounts from the Corporation. It appears that there was some dispute about the amounts payable to the appellant. The stand of the Corporation appears to be that payment in excess of the actual dues had been made to the appellant. The present dispute does not relate to the said controversy. Undisputedly, arbitration proceedings have been initiated. The Commercial Tax Officer, respondent No. 1, issued notices of attachment to Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, Secundrabad to attach the bank account of the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r and the State Government did not dispute the stand that the Corporation has to deposit the amounts which has been deducted at source. The stand of the Corporation essentially is that there is some dispute about the amounts to be paid to the appellant and, in fact, its stand is that the payment in excess of what is legally due has been made. The basic issue is whether the amount which has been deducted at source by the Corporation is required to be deposited with the Commercial Tax Department. There is no scope for any controversy on this score. The amounts have been deducted in terms of the directions given by the Commissioner. The relevant portion of the circular dated December 17, 1998 reads as follows: "During the course of meeting, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax is leviable. In the Commissioner's circular dated July 7, 1999, it has been clearly stated that in the meeting held on March 27, 1999, it was decided to deduct tax at source in respect of all purchases made by the Corporation and to deposit the said amount with the Commissioner. In view of the aforesaid factual position, we direct that the Corporation should deposit the amounts which have not yet been deposited in respect of amounts deducted at source as tax. The deposit shall be made within one month from today. It is unnecessary to state that we have not expressed any opinion on the dispute relating to the entitlement of the appellant and the question whether there has been any over-payment as claimed by the Corporation. The appeals a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
