Sri Ippili Ananda Rao vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Held
The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order of the 3rd respondent. The Court directed the respondent authorities not to take coercive steps for the collection of the disputed amount, subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed sum. This deposit includes 25% already deposited at the time of filing the appeal before the A.P. VAT Appellate Tribunal. The deposit is to be made within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Court found that the pendency of the appeal and the potential hardship warranted setting aside the dismissal of the stay application.
Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of their stay application by the 3rd respondent, dated May 8, 2023. This dismissal occurred pending the petitioner's appeal, T.A. No. 84 of 2022, before the A.P. VAT Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner argued that the collection of the disputed amount would cause hardship while the appeal was pending. The High Court considered the pendency of the appeal and the potential hardship to the petitioner.
Key Issues
1. Whether the dismissal of the stay application by the 3rd respondent, pending appeal before the A.P. VAT Appellate Tribunal, was justified, considering the potential hardship to the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the dismissal of the stay application was erroneous and would cause undue hardship due to the pending appeal. The revenue's arguments are not recorded in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO AND HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
WRIT PETITION No.14217 of 2023
ORDER: (per Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J)
Challenging the dismissal of the stay application by the 3rd respondent vide order dated 08.05.2023 pending the petitioner’s appeal T.A. No.84 of 2022 before the A.P. VAT Appellate Tribunal, the instant writ petition is filed.
Having regard to the fact that the appeal is pending before the A.P. VAT Appellate Tribunal and in the meanwhile, collection of the disputed amount payable would put the petitioner in hardship, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order.
Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and it is directed that the respondent authorities shall not take any coercive steps to collect the disputed amount on the condition of petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed sum (including 25% already deposited at the time of filing
the appeal before the A.P. VAT Appellate Tribunal) within a period
2 of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending,
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.