9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). Facts, to the extent necessary, are that the petitioner was assessed to tax under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 ("the Act" for brevity). The second respondent sought to revise the assessment order and issued show cause notice dated 31.10.2014 and, thereafter, passed a revisional order confirming the tax liability of Rs. 23,80,120/- and rejecting the exemption claimed by the petitioner for Rs. 1,90,40,962/-. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal in T.A.No.126 of 2015, and the said appeal is said to be still pending on the file of the Tribunal. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application before the fifth respondent, under Section 33(6) of the Act read with Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he sale bills issued by them. Suffice it to observe that the prima facie conclusion of the Additional Commissioner in this regard cannot be said to suffer from perversity necessitating exercise interference in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Needless to state that the Tribunal shall examine the petitioner's claim, on the inapplicability of Rule 26(1) of the Rules, on its own merits uninfluenced by the observations made either by the Additional Commissioner in the impugned order or by this Court in the present Writ Petition. With regard the contention that the Additional Commissioner ought not to have examine the matter on merits, it is evident that the impugned order merely records the prima facie view of the Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led before him, either conditionally or unconditionally. In the present case, the Additional Commissioner has specifically held that the petitioner's application, for grant of stay pending disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal, did not merit acceptance. This contention urged by Sri Damodar Mundra also necessitates rejection. Sri Damodar Mundra, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner has, in addition to the amount already deposited before the Tribunal, also paid Rs. 9,70,000/- towards the disputed tax. The second proviso to Section 33(2) of the Act requires 25% of the differential tax, as ordered by the revisional authority under Section 32(2) of the Act, to be paid for an appeal, under Section 33(1) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
