2016 (4) TMI 1346 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court orders deposit of disputed tax pending appeal resolution in Set Top Boxes rights case.

The court refrained from expressing an opinion on the merits of the dispute in a tax recovery case involving alleged transfer of Set Top Boxes rights. ... Grant of stay of recovery of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal - alleged transfer of the right to use the Set Top Boxes and other equipment supplied by the 1st petitioner to their customers - Held that:- In similar circumstances, in the case of another DTH operator, M/S. VIDEOCON D2H LIMITED VERSUS COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [2016 (4) TMI 1345 - TELANGANA & ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] this Court had disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents not to take any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner on condition that the petitioner therein deposited 25% of the disputed tax within two weeks; and credit for the tax already paid by them was given credit to. On condition that the 1st petitioner deposits 25% of the disputed tax within two weeks from today, after being given credit for any amount already paid in this regard, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax till the appeal is disposed of by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. Petition disposed off. Issues involved:1. Rejection of application for grant of stay of recovery of disputed tax pending appeal2. Alleged transfer of right to use Set Top Boxes and equipment3. Similarity to another DTH operator's caseAnalysis:1. The writ petition challenged the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner rejecting the petitioner's application for stay of recovery of disputed tax pending appeal. The petitioner was assessed to tax for a specific period, and a substantial amount was levied based on the alleged transfer of the right to use Set Top Boxes and other equipment to customers. The petitioners contended that there was no transfer of the right to use these goods, and they paid service tax for the services provided. The court refrained from expressing any opinion on the dispute's merits as the substantive appeal was pending before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner.2. The court noted a previous case involving a different DTH operator where a similar issue had arisen. In that case, the court directed that coercive steps for tax recovery should not be taken pending appeal if the petitioner deposited 25% of the disputed tax within a specified time frame. The court granted credit for any tax already paid by the petitioner. Drawing parallels, the court issued a similar order in the present writ petition. The 1st petitioner was required to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within two weeks, with credit for any prior payments, to prevent coercive recovery actions until the appeal's resolution by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner.3. Given the similarity to the previous case involving a different DTH operator, the court applied consistent reasoning and precedent in granting relief to the petitioners. By ensuring a fair process and providing an opportunity for the petitioner to deposit a portion of the disputed tax, the court balanced the interests of both parties involved in the dispute. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with miscellaneous petitions also being resolved, and no costs were awarded in the matter.