TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (2) TMI 652
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eader for Commercial Taxes. The petitioner challenges the garnishee order dated December 7, 2012 issued by the second respondent under section 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, "the Act") to the fifth respondentbank directing the latter to pay a sum of Rs. 25,86,668 comprising tax and penalty for the period April 1, 2008 to September 30, 2011 under the Act and also seeks consequential orders. The petitioner is a charitable trust registered in 1991 and had established a medical college and hospital in 2001 at Katuari Nagar, Edulapalem Village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District. It is also registered as a dealer under the Act on the rolls of the first respondent. On November 24, 2011, the second respon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the petitioner has an account) to remit Rs. 25,86,668 towards balance disputed tax and penalty. Immediately the petitioner approached second respondent and submitted a representation dated December 8, 2012 informing him about pendency of the appeals and revision petitions and requested him to revoke the garnishee proceedings and await the orders of the fourth respondent in the revisions. But the second respondent endorsed on the petitioner's representation that the petitioner has more funds in the bank than required for meeting the disputed demands and therefore he need not revoke the garnishee proceedings. It is contended by the petitioner that under coercion, the fifth respondent was compelled to transfer the above amount from the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner, Secunderabad Division, Nampally, Hyderabad [1995] 98 STC 386 (AP); 21 APSTJ 98, staying recovery of disputed tax and penalty wherever stay applications are pending before first appellate authorities, has no application. Admittedly the stay applications filed by the petitioner in the appeals preferred by it before the third respondent were dismissed by non-speaking orders (which conduct by such appellate authorities has been deprecated time and again by this court) and the revision petitions filed by the petitioner challenging the same are pending before the fourth respondent. It is not known why the fourth respondent has kept the revision petitions filed on June 23, 2012 before him pending till date without passing orders even ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rongly deprecate this conduct of the second respondent and hold the same to be arbitrary and high-handed. For the above reasons, we set aside the impugned garnishee notice dated December 7, 2012, issued by the second respondent; direct the second respondent to immediately remit the sum of Rs. 25,86,668 to the bank account of the petitioner in the fifth respondent-bank; set aside the non-speaking orders dated May 22, 2012 and June 7, 2012 passed by the third respondent rejecting the stay applications filed by the petitioner in the appeals challenging the orders of assessments and penalty; and direct the third respondent to pass fresh and reasoned orders on the applications within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy o....