2020 (4) TMI 638 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Coercive Tax Recovery Halted Pending Appeals

The High Court held that coercive recovery actions for disputed tax and penalty should not be initiated during the pendency of appeals and stay ... Garnishee Order - Initiation of Coercive action for recovery of the disputed tax and penalty - periods from June, 2014 to March, 2017 - APVAT Act, 2005 - revision petition and the stay petition were pending - Complaint of the petitioner is that while both the revision petition and the stay petition were pending, the respondents could not have initiated the recovery proceedings - HELD THAT:- The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in ANAB-E-SHAHI WINES AND DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS APPELLATE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SECUNDERABAD DIVISION, NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS [1995 (3) TMI 439 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], show that this Court consistently and continuously held that wherever there is a provision for grant of stay in an appeal or higher proceedings, coercive steps cannot be taken unless and until the authorities dispose of the applications filed under such provisions. The garnishee order is quashed - petition allowed. Issues:1. Legality of initiating coercive action for recovery of disputed tax and penalty during pendency of appeals and stay/revision applications.2. Rejection of stay application and pending revision before higher authorities.3. Issuance of garnishee notice by respondent No.2.4. Compliance with judgments regarding the grant of stay in appeals and coercive recovery methods.Analysis:1. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the coercive recovery actions taken by respondents 1 and 2 for the disputed tax and penalty under the APVAT Act, 2005, from June 2014 to March 2017 during the pendency of appeals and stay/revision applications. The petitioner sought to declare these actions as illegal, contrary to law and binding judgments of higher courts. The petitioner specifically requested to set aside the garnishee notice dated 13.02.2020 and restrain respondents from taking coercive actions until the disposal of tax and penalty appeals.2. Respondent No.2 assessed the petitioner to a tax amount and penalty, against which the petitioner filed appeals and stay petitions before higher authorities. The stay application was rejected by respondent No.3 without providing reasons, prompting the petitioner to file a revision before respondent No.4. The penalty order was also challenged through an appeal, with the stay petition pending consideration. The petitioner argued that recovery proceedings should not have been initiated while the revision and stay petitions were pending, citing various judgments supporting this contention.3. Respondent No.2 issued a garnishee notice on 13.02.2020 to recover outstanding amounts from the petitioner's bank account. The petitioner contended that such actions were premature and not in line with the legal provisions governing the grant of stay in appeal proceedings. The petitioner relied on previous judgments to support the argument that coercive recovery methods should not be employed until stay applications are decided by the appellate authorities.4. The High Court analyzed the judgments cited by the petitioner and emphasized that coercive measures for tax recovery should not be taken until stay applications are disposed of. The Court noted that the authorities must follow the legal provisions and grant stays where applicable before resorting to coercive actions. Consequently, the garnishee order dated 13.02.2020 was quashed, allowing authorities to take steps only after the stipulated time in the stay order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, or after the stay application in the penalty appeal is decided by respondent No.3, whichever is later.In conclusion, the Writ Petition was allowed, with no costs imposed, and any pending Miscellaneous Petitions in the case were closed accordingly.