M/S. Pearl Bottling PVT LTD. vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

W.P. No.21940 of 2020

O R D E R:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)

This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “…..to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in CTD Order No.JCO ZH371020OD42673, dated 21.10.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking a stay on the recovery of the balance disputed tax of Rs.8.35,064/- towards VAT for the period April, 2014 to March, 2015, as illegal, arbitrary, unsustainable and unconstitutional and set aside the same and further direct the respondents not to take any coercive steps/measures against the petitioner pursuant to the proceedings dated 21.10.2020 of the 2nd respondent.”

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner – M/s.Pearl Bottling Private Limited, which is engaged in the business of manufacture of soft drinks, was audited by the 4th respondent – Assistant Commissioner(CT) on 29.09.2016. Pursuant thereto, a show cause notice dated 06.12.2012 was issued to the petitioner and an Assessment Order dated 11.01.2017 came to be passed for the period April, 2014 to March, 2015 levying VAT denying the input tax credit available to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 11.01.2017, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent - Appellate Deputy Commissioner along with an application seeking stay of recovery of the balance disputed tax. He paid a pre-deposit of 12.5% of the disputed tax at the time of filing the appeal. The 3rd respondent, vide order dated 07.12.2017, dismissed the appeal as well as the application seeking stay of recovery of the balance disputed tax. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the A.P. Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam by paying 50% of the disputed tax and also filed an application before the 2nd respondent – Joint Commissioner seeking stay of recovery of the balance disputed tax. The WP_21940_2020 Joint Commissioner, by proceedings dated 21.10.2020, dismissed the said application in a cryptic manner. Challenging the order dated 21.10.2020, the present writ petition is filed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has already deposited 50% of the balance disputed tax which is inclusive of pre-deposit of 12.5% of the balance disputed tax at the time of filing the appeal, and as such, the question of paying some more amount would not arise. He would also submit that since substantial amount is already paid the authorities may not insist the petitioner on depositing any further tax and also take steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax.

The same is strongly opposed by the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes stating that the deposit of 50% of the balance disputed tax while filing the appeal is a statutory restriction, as such, the question of seeking blanket stay would not arise. He also pleads that the provisions of Section 33-6A of the Value Added Tax Act would become otiose in case the petitioner is not directed to pay any amount while granting stay.

As seen from the record, since 50% of the disputed tax has already been paid by the petitioner and as the appeal is still pending adjudication before the A.P. Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that it may not be proper on the part of the respondents to insist on the petitioner depositing balance of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal. Hence, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner for recovery of the balance disputed tax in case the petitioner has really deposited 50% of the disputed tax while preferring the appeal before the 3rd respondent - Appellate Deputy Commissioner. However, WP_21940_2020 the A.P. Value Added Tax Tribunal, Visakhapatnam shall take steps for disposal of the appeal at the earliest.

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous. _________________ C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J