TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (1) TMI 134
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aged in the manufacture and sale of steric acid vanaspati. They were sanctioned industrial incentive (sales tax deferment) to the extent of Rs. 14,95,62,130. For the assessment year 2001-02, the CTO completed the assessment under both the Acts in March, 2005. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Punjagutta (ADC). The two separate appeals were rejected for non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirement of the law. The dealer then filed further appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT). The two appeals being T.A. No. 361 of 2007 in relation the assessment under the APGST Act and T.A. No. 362 of 2007 relating to the assessment under the CST Act were dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ADC, therefore, issued a check memo which was served on the authorized representative of the dealer on July 15, 2005. Even after expiry of about seven months, the dealer did not produce proof of payment of 12.5 per cent of the disputed tax. Therefore the appeals were rejected on February 15, 2006. As noticed supra, the dealer unsuccessfully filed appeals under section 21(1) of the APGST Act before the STAT. The senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that the STAT was not justified in holding that the petitioner committed default in complying with the second proviso to section 19(1) of the APGST Act when the petitioner under the relevant proceedings of the Commissionerate of Industries sanctioning incentive (sales tax deferment) is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eriod. (Substituted by the A.P. Act No. 8 of 1997 with effect from January 4, 1997) Provided further that an appeal so preferred shall not be admitted by the appellate authority concerned unless the dealer produces proof of payment of tax admitted to be due, or of such instalments as have been granted, and the proof of payment of twelve and half per cent of the difference of the tax assessed by the assessing authority and the tax admitted by the appellant, for the relevant assessment year, in respect of which the appeal is preferred. (Substituted by the A.P. Act No. 3 of 2002 with effect from November 30, 2001)." A plain reading of the above provisions would reveal that to be a valid appeal, it should satisfy twin conditions of being fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellate authority is required to hear and adjudicate the appeal on its merits, subject to fulfilment of the other conditions prescribed in the Act and the Rules. The first proviso to section 19(1) confers discretion on the appellate authority to admit an appeal preferred by a dealer beyond 30 days of receipt of the order passed by the authority. Exercise of such discretion is fettered by two conditions: (1) the appeal ought to have been preferred within a further period of 30 days, after the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order passed by the authority; and (2) the appellate authority must be satisfied that the dealer had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the original period of 30 days prescribe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....days, and to treat such belated payment as having been made at the time of filing of the appeal itself. Reliance placed on Mannan Lal v Mst. Chhotka Bibi AIR 1971 SC 1374, is, therefore, misplaced, and the defect in belated payment of the admitted tax/12.5 per cent of the disputed tax, beyond sixty days of receipt of a copy of the assessment order, can neither be cured nor be treated as having been paid at the time when the appeal was originally filed." Therefore, in this case, the petitioner/dealer did not comply with the second proviso while filing appeal before the ADC and, therefore, the order of the ADC and the order of the STAT upholding the former cannot be faulted. The submission of the petitioner that the second proviso to sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the amended provision cannot be countenanced. Whether the petitioner can take shelter under the order of the Commissionerate of Industries in sanctioning the incentive (sales tax deferment)? The answer must be in the negative. In Ankamma Trading Company [2011] 44 VST 189 (AP); [2011] 53 APSTJ 1, this court decided a batch of five writ petitions. One of them, being W.P. No. 27885 of 2010, was also a case where the dealer therein was availing of the benefit of tax deferment and for that reason did not comply with the second proviso to section 19(1) of the APGST Act. Even the said writ petition was also dismissed by this court observing as under (page 224 in 44 VST): "As a result it must be held that payment of the admitted tax/12.5 per ce....