BharatTaxGST

M/S. Arya Agencies vs. The Dy. Commercial Tax Officer-Iv

Original PDF →
WP/27342/2025HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01051623202514 October 2025Bench: R RAGHUNANDAN RAO,T.C.D.SEKHAR5 pages
For Petitioner: A SARVESWAR RAOFor Respondent: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
APHC010516232025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 27342/2025 Between: 1. M/S. ARYA AGENCIES,, REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR. S. RAVI, D. NO. 14-170, PARK STREET, PAKALA-517 112, CHITTOOR DIST ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICERIV, TIRUPATHI - II CIRCLE, TIRUPATHI. 2. THE JT COMMISSIONER ST, CHITTOOR DIVISION, CHITTOOR. 3. THE A P VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHINAGADILI, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CT, LEGAL, KUNCHANAPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (CT-II) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST., A.P. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of a WRIT of MANDAMUS declaring that A. The stay dismissal order passed by 2 the 4th Respondent, in DIN 3722082534592, in CCTs Ref No. L II(l)/03/2025 Dt. 22-08-2025, (Ex. P-1), under the A.P. VAT Act, 2005, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Section 13(1) of the Act, and against the principles of natural justice and consequently. B. to direct the 1st Respondent and his aegis to restrain from taking any steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax of Rs. 8,49,995/- out of the total disputed tax of Rs. 11,33,395/-, for the Period, from 9/2012 to 6/2017 in pursuance of the 4th Respondents orders till the disposal of the appeal, in TA. No. 110/2023 pending before the AP VAT Appellate Tribunal, 3rd respondent here in, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of collection of the balance disputed tax of Rs. 8,49,995/- out of the total disputed tax of Rs. 11,33,395/-, for the period, from 9/2012 to 6/2017, in pursuance of the 4th Respondent’s orders, pending disposal of the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A SARVESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 3

The Court made the following ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents.

2.

The petitioner had been assessed to tax under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the year 2016-2017 had suffered an order of revision, dated 09.03.2023, issued by the Joint Commissioner (ST), Chittoor Division, Chittoor. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had approached the APVAT Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam by way of Tribunal Appeal No.110 of 2023 and the same is pending before the Tribunal.

3.

Pending disposal of the appeal, the petitioner has also approached the 4th respondent for stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.11,33,395/-. It appears that 25% of the said tax has already been paid and only Rs.8,49,995/- remains unpaid. The 4th respondent dismissed the stay application on 22.08.2025. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the stay application, the petitioner has approached this court by way of the present writ petition.

4.

Sri A.Sarveswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the revisional authority had passed an order which is not maintainable on facts or on law. He would submit that the revisional authority, going on a purported difference between the purchases and sales made by 4

the petitioner had concluded, wrongly, that the petitioner has claimed an extent of Rs.11,33,395/- as wrongful Input Tax Credit. Learned counsel would submit that this issue was also not properly considered by the 4th respondent who had simply dismissed the stay application on the ground that these issues would be considered by the Tribunal itself.

5.

It would not be appropriate for this Court to go into the merits of the aforesaid contentions and any finding of this Court would affect the disposal of the appeal before the APVAT Tribunal. However, since prima facie, a case appears to be available for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction staying further collection of the disputed tax for the period September, 2012 to June, 2017, subject to payment of 25% of the balance disputed tax within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of this order.

6.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Date: 15.10.2025 KA

5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

WRIT PETITION NO: 27342/2025

Date: 15.10.2025 KA

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.