TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Additional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, may within 30 days from the date on which the order or proceeding was served on him, appeal to such authority as may be prescribed. It is to be noted here that the word used is any order passed and not order of assessment . Hence, the argument of the learned Government Pleader that appeal itself may not lie cannot be accepted - the endorsement made by the Assistant Commissioner on October 18, 2019 can be challenged in an appeal. In fact, the endorsement itself shows that an appeal lies before the ADC (CT), Tirupati against the said endorsement. Payment of 12.5 per cent. of the difference of tax as assessed by the authority prescribed - HELD THAT:- It is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... insisting on payment of 12.5 per cent. of tax in accordance with the law - Petition allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Writ Petition Nos. 19929, 19950, 19951, 20007, 20041 and 20175 of 2020. - - - Dated:- 3-12-2020 - C. PRAVEEN KUMAR and NINALA JAYASURYA JJ. Shaik Jeelani Basha for the petitioners. The Government Pleader For Commercial Taxes for the respondents. ORDER As the issue involved in all the cases being one and the same, they are dealt with together taking Writ Petition No. 20175 of 2020 as a lead petition. 2. The writ petition came to be filed to declare the action of the first respondent in rejecting the appeal, vide proceedings dated March 3, 2020, for the assessment year 2011-12, under the Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Tirupati, who, vide order dated March 3, 2020, refused to admit the appeal on the ground that the petitioner failed to pay 12.5 per cent. of the disputed tax along with the appeal. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed. 4. Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, would submit that, the issue involved is no more resintegra and it is covered by the orders passed by the Division Bench of this court in Writ Petition No. 5368 of 2020 (Prasuna Vamsi Krishna Spinning Mills Private Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer [2021] 86 GSTR 184 (AP)) and Writ Petition No. 12362 of 2019 (Sri Hari Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dditional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, may within thirty days from the date on which the order or proceeding was served on him, appeal to such authority as may be prescribed : Provided that the appellate authority may within a further period of thirty days admit the appeal preferred after a period of thirty days if he is satisfied that the VAT dealer or TOT dealer or any other dealer had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within that period : Provided further that an appeal so preferred shall not be admitted by the appellate authority concerned unless the dealer produces proof of payment of tax admitted to be due, or of such instalments as have been granted, and the proof of payment of twelve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted to only assessment orders. If that was the intention of the Legislature, the same would have been incorporated therein. In the absence of the same, we are of the view that the endorsement made by the Assistant Commissioner on October 18, 2019 can be challenged in an appeal. In fact, the endorsement itself shows that an appeal lies before the ADC (CT), Tirupati against the said endorsement. 8. The next issue is with regard to payment of 12.5 per cent. of the difference of tax as assessed by the authority prescribed. A reading of material placed before the court does not show that the dispute or the lis between the parties, is with regard to payment of any tax or collection of difference of tax or the penalty imposed therein. In fact, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of the authority to pay 12.5 per cent. of the disputed tax as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal would be incorrect and unsustainable. 10. Having regard to the above and in view of the orders passed by this court in the writ petitions referred to above, all the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside directing the first respondent-Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Tirupati to entertain the appeals of the petitioners in all the writ petitions against the endorsements of the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner (ST), Vinukonda Circle, dated October 18, 2019 and deal with the appeals without insisting on payment of 12.5 per cent. of tax in accordance with the law. No order as to costs in all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
