IJM (INDIA) INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
LAWS(APH)-2020-12-161
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 07,2020

Ijm (India) Infrastructures Limited Appellant
VERSUS
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.V.SESHA SAI,J. - (1.)Heard Sri Vemireddy Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri T.C.D.Sekhar, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes.
(2.)In the present Writ Petition, challenge is to the order, dated 13.11.2020, passed by the Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal, Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of A.P-third respondent herein, directing the petitioner herein to deposit 50% of the disputed penalty amount pending appeal before the appellate authority-second respondent herein. The Commercial Tax Officerfirst respondent herein issued a show cause notice, dated 13.11.2018, proposing to levy tax of Rs.9,00,40,230/- for the period commencing from June, 2014 to March, 2017. In response to the said show cause notice, petitioner herein filed objections on 26.12.2018, enclosing Books of Account and relevant documentary evidence. The assessing authority-first respondent herein issued an order of assessment on 30.01.2019 for Rs.6,49,45,873/-. Assailing the said order of assessment, petitioner preferred statutory appeal before the second respondent on 20.03.2019, by depositing 12.5% of the disputed amount, and also filed a stay application along with the said appeal. Vide order, dated 28.09.2019, the appellate authority-second respondent herein rejected the said stay application, which prompted the petitioner herein to file a revision before the Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal-third respondent herein on 13.01.2020. Vide order, dated 27.02.2020, third respondent herein granted stay on condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner deposited the said 50% of the disputed tax, as directed in the order, dated 27.02.2020.
(3.)The assessing authority-first respondent herein also passed an order of penalty on 05.11.2019. Questioning the said order of penalty, petitioner herein filed a statutory appeal before the second respondent herein and also paid 12.5% of the said penalty amount. Petitioner also filed a stay application. Vide order, dated 24.08.2020, the appellate authority-second respondent herein rejected the stay application. Questioning the said order of rejection, on 14.09.2020, petitioner filed revision before the third respondent. Now, by way of the impugned order, dated 13.11.2020, third respondent herein granted stay on condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed penalty. In the present Writ Petition, the said condition, directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the disputed tax for granting stay, is under challenge.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.