9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 1st respondent herein vide proceedings CCT's Ref.No.LII (1)/26/2020, dated 22.01.2021. By way of the said order, the 1st respondent dismissed the stay application filed by the petitioner/assessee under Section 33 (6)(a) of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short "APVAT Act, 2005). 2. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-II, Kakinada Circle, East Godavari District-2nd respondent herein passed an order of assessment vide A.O.No.100085, dated 23.02.2018 assessing the tax liability as Rs. 3,87,733/-. Aggrieved by the said order of assessment passed by the 2nd respondent herein, the petitioner/assessee preferred a Statutory Appeal under Section 31 of the APVAT Act, 2005 before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vijayawada on 06.04.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order and the impugned order is neither sustainable nor tenable in the eye of law. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 1st respondent herein ought to have taken into consideration that the petitioner herein has already deposited 50% of the disputed tax i.e., 12.5% at the time of filing the appeal before the first appellate authority and 37.5% at the time of filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It is further contention of the learned counsel that since the Statutory Appeal is pending before the Tribunal under Section 33 of the APVAT Act 2005, the 1st respondent ought not to have made observations, touching the merits of the appeal and ought to have taken into consideration the balance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rein availed the remedy of appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner by paying 12.5% of the disputed tax. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 03.08.2019 dismissed the appeal. Subsequently, the assessee/petitioner herein, by complying with the mandatory requirement of deposit of additional sum equivalent to 37.5% of the disputed tax, preferred Statutory Appeal before the Tribunal on 21.10.2019. The said aspects are not in dispute. 9. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments that apart from the impugned assessment, the respondent authorities also imposed penalty and in the said proceedings before the first and second appellate authorities the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntions raised by the petitioner herein in the grounds of appeal are required to be gone into by the Tribunal under Section 33 of the APVAT Act, this Court does not find any justification on the part of the 1st respondent in declining to consider the request of the petitioner herein by going into merits of the appeal. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the order of the 1st respondent vide proceedings CCT's Ref.No. LII(1)/26/2020, dated 22.01.2021 and consequently the stay application filed by the petitioner on 27.02.2020 (received by the office of the 1st respondent on 02.03.2020) stands allowed and the stay shall remain in force pending disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal. No order as to costs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
