TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court grants stay on tax assessment order for book publisher's 2003-2004 liability</h1> <h3>Kala Jyothi Process Private Limited Versus Commercial Tax Officer, Gandhi Nagar Circle, Hyderabad and others</h3> The High Court of Andhra Pradesh granted a stay on the enforcement of the assessment order for a book publisher's tax liability for the year 2003-2004. ... - Issues Involved:Assessment of tax for the year 2003-2004 on a publisher of books, liability to pay tax on publications made, appeal against assessment order, application for stay, revision petition, validity of the order of assessment, enforcement of the assessment order, protection of the interests of the State and the petitioner.Analysis:The judgment delivered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh pertains to a case involving the assessment of tax for the year 2003-2004 on a book publisher. The petitioner, claiming not to be liable to pay tax on its publications, challenged the assessment order. The petitioner first appealed against the order of assessment before the second respondent, accompanied by an application for stay which was rejected. Subsequently, the petitioner sought redress through a revision petition before the third respondent, which was dismissed on May 12, 2006, leading to the filing of a writ petition before the High Court.The Court, in its order, acknowledged the submissions made regarding the validity of the assessment order but decided not to delve into it at that stage. However, recognizing the need to balance the interests of both the State and the petitioner, the Court directed that the petitioner need not pay the entire disputed tax amount immediately. Instead, it ordered that half of the disputed tax be deposited by the petitioner within a specified time frame to ensure the interests of both parties were safeguarded.Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by granting a stay on the enforcement of the order passed by the first respondent. This stay was contingent upon the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks from the date of the judgment and another 25% within four weeks thereafter. The Court also clarified that any amount already deposited by the petitioner would be considered in the first installment. Additionally, the judgment specified that no costs were to be incurred by either party in this matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
