TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed. - WP.No.s 3954, 3976, 4089, 4115, 4518, 4556 and 4577 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 2-3-2020 - THE HON BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO AND THE HON BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD FOR THE PETITIONER : KAILASH NATH P S S, ADVOCATE COMMON ORDER : 1. This batch of writ petitions relate to the assessment years 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2015-16 and relate to the liability of the petitioner towards VAT and penalty arrived at by the Assessing Authorities under the Telangana VAT Act, 2005, which assessments are pending challenge in some cases before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Telangana and in some cases before the Telangana VAT Appellate Tribunal in the manner indicated below: Sl No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 2014-15 4115/2020 Penalty ADC 9,23,235 1,15,404 12.5% PV/231/2018-19 ACO 235/2019 50% 5 2014-15 4518/2020 VAT ADC 36,92,940 4,61,618 12.5% PV/218/2018-19 ACO 234/2019 50% 6 2015-16 4577/2020 VAT ADC 35,73,255 4,46,657 12.5% PV/219/2018-19 ACO 236/2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for consideration. In that case, this Court held that once the assessee had 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. 5. This above order was later confirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP(CIVIL) Diary No.11711 of 2019 on 22.04.2019. 6. The Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes appearing for respondents does not dispute the principle laid down in these cases. 7. Since the petitioner had already paid 12.5% or more of the disputed tax pending appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and the Telangana VAT Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ref.No.LIII(1)/77/2019 of the 2nd respondent and also the Garnishee Order issued by the 1st respondent to the 3rd respondent under Section 29 of the Act for recovery of the disputed tax of Rs.3,34,983/- for the period 2015-16, are set aside. No order as to costs. v) W.P.No.4518 of 2020 is allowed; the order dt.13.03.2019 in ACO.No.234/2019 with CCT s Ref.No.LIII(1)/74/2019 of the 2nd respondent and also the Garnishee Order issued by the 1st respondent to the 3rd respondent under Section 29 of the Act for recovery of the disputed tax of Rs.13,84,852/- for the period 2014-15, are set aside. No order as to costs. vi) W.P.No.4556 of 2020 is allowed; the order dt.20.03.2019 in ACO.No.281/2019 with CCT s Ref.No.LIII(1)/151/2019 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
