M/S. Jsw Cement Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT) (Ltu)

This writ petition is directed against the impugned proceedings in against the Assessment Order dated.

(a) The. grievance of the petitioner as ventilated by the learned application on the sole ground that the seller has not uploaded the sale -«■ eSb==- counsel for petitioner is that, in spite of petitioner submitting the explanation and Objection item wise on which tax is levied in the stay . application, the 3"* respondent in the impugned order without giving the consideration to those explanations and objections has rejected the stay HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO AND HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAIPRATAPA 08.022022* for the assessment year April 2015 to June 2017 under the APVAT Act, 2005. CCT’s Ref.No.LII(l)/09/2023, dated 24.05.2023 passed by the 3"* respondent rejecting the stay application pending the petitioner’s appeal before the 2"**. respondent as 2 documents, which is factually incorrect. April 2015.to June 2017 i.e., the entire assessment period was barred by (c) Learned counsel would thus submit that he has fair chances of balance of the tax pending appeal, would face much hardship. 4. review the same. i limitation, but this aspect was also not considered while examining the -.stay application. Learned Government Pleader strongly opposed the writ petition contending that the stay application was dismissed on fair consideration of all the contentions raised by the petitioner and therefore there is no need to succeeding in the appeal and in the meanwhile, the petitioner who has already deposited 12.5% of the disputed tax, is directed* to deposit the invoices and purchase turnovers are not matching with the invoices uploaded by seller and the petitioner failed to submit reports and (b) Learned counsel for petitioner by referring the impugned order, would submit that the petitioner has uploaded purchase invoices Only with regard to those goods for which the input tax credit was claimed and these documents were not considered. Learned counsel also took us through the contentions of the petitioner and argued that the assessment for the period a i'i" f 3 5. 6. petitioner will be put to much hardship. 7. 12.5% of the tax which he claims to have deposited. ===“ 1 f l' f consideration the limitation as pleaded by the petitioner and his plea that he Claimed input tax credit to the extent he is eligible. These are the • aspects to be decided in the main appeal. I 1 3 I .. respondent, is set aside and there shall be stay of collection of the balance of the disputed tax pending the appeal before the 2"^* respondent on ; . . _ . ■ ! condition of petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in addition to! ii t 5 ! ii as J,' li ’ » . S' We are of the view that the stay application was not properly considered in the light , of various grounds submitted by the petitioner as against the impugned Assessment Order, as rightly submitted by the j .Jeamed counsel for petitioner. Pending disposal of the apjpeal, if the " ■■ - i petitioner is directed to deposit the balance. of the disputed to, the ! 6 li rd' We have perused the impugned order dated 24.05.2023 . that the petitioner besides taking the objections that assessment period was time . , s barred took various other contentions on the item wise tax imposed by the Assessing Authority. Be that it may, after noting the various contentions in the analysis part of the order, respondent has not taken into Accordingly the impugned order dated 24.05.2023 passed by the 3

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall stand closed. //// -FICER SECTION »• S/d- P. VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ s> To,