S L V SESHA SAI OIL CO Vs. C T O KURNOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Government pleader.

(2.) In this writ petition, the question that falls for consideration is whether, under Sec. 19 (2) (c) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, the Joint Cfommissioner of Commercial Taxes is bound to make an order on merits 6f the stay petition for continuing the stay granted by the first appellate authority pending the disposal of an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, The case of the petitioner is that, while the appeal was pending before the appellate authority, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) had granted stay. The appeal was ultimately dismissed. The assessee carried the matter in appeal to the sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Under Sec. 19 (2) (c), the stay granted by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) would continue only in a case where the Joint Commissioner, on an application made to him by the dealer in the prescribed manner, makes a specific order to that effect. The dealer made an application in this behalf. The Joint Commissioner, however, after referring to the fact that the dealer had preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, observed : "As the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is now seized of the matter, he may approach sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for stay of collection of tax sought for." With that observation, he rejected the stay petition. In other words, the Joint Commissioner refused to exercise his discretion one way or the other after considering the merits of the stay petition and directed the dealer to move the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal before whom the appeal has been filed. The Joint Commissioner (legal), in considering an application of a dealer under S. 19 (2)(c) for continuance of the stay pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, exercises a quasi-judicial function imposed by the statute. The fact that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, before whom the appeal is pending, is also competent to either grant or refuse the request of the dealer for stay of the recovery of tax pending disposal of the appeal, does not absolve the Joint Commissioner from discharging the autoutory duty cast upon him under Sec. 19 (2) (c) of the Act. A dealer is given by the statute the right to move the Joint Commissioner under S. 19 (2) (c) for continuance of the stay. If it is allowed, the dealer is not obliged to further move the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal ; but, if it is rejected, he is given by the statute a further right to move for stay before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Merely because the dealer had filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Joint Commissioner cannot refuse to consider the application on merits. He has to discharge his statutory duty. In as much as the only reason given by the Joint Commissioner in passing the impugned order is that the dealer may move the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, we hold that the Joint Commissioner has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him under Sec. 19(2)(c). In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and direct the Joint Commissioner to consider the application on merits and pass such orders as he thinks fit and pending disposal of the said application, direct that there shall be stay of the recovery of tax for the month of April, 1982.

(3.) In this writ petition, the learned Government pleader raised a preliminary objection that the Writ Petitioner is not entitled to question the order of the Joint Commissioner made in four different petitions filed by the dealer rejecting his request for stay of the recovery of tax pending disposal of the appeals filed before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The dealer had filed four different appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Joint Commissioner himself has passed separate orders on each of the petitions for stay. Therefore, a single writ petition is not maintainable.