TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 1328
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for the respondents. As could be seen from the material available on record, the petitioner was assessed for the tax period 2006-07 to 2009-10 by order dated 28.04.2011 and a demand for Rs. 15,41,30,645/-was raised on the ground that supply by agents of the petitioner to the foreign going vessels constitute sale and that the petitioner is not entitled to claim input VAT credit as it is not a registered dealer under the provisions of A.P. VAT Act, 2005. Challenging the said order of assessment, the petitioner filed W.P.No.23732 of 2011. The said writ petition is pending on the file of this Court and the interim stay granted by this Court is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of tax of Rs. 1,52,03,321/- for the year 2010-11 because the assessee-company has not produced the books of accounts for verification before initiating assessment proceedings; and therefore based on the material communicated by the RV and EO and also from the oil companies assessment was proposed. The Section 32 (5) of AP VAT Act, 2005 says "It shall be lawful for the Commissioner to defer any proceeding under this section by the reason of the fact that an appeal or other proceeding is pending before the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court involving a question of law having a direct bearing on the order of proceeding in question. Though the issue involved is same, as in W.P.No.23732/2011, before the Hon'ble H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he supplies made by the agents of the petitioner to the foreign going vessel are sales and are exigible to tax under the A.P. VAT Act in the hands of the petitioner and whether the petitioner is entitled to claim input VAT credit, has a direct bearing on the assessment proceedings initiated for the tax period 2010-11. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the proposed assessment for the tax period 2010-11 has to be deferred till W.P.No.23732 of 2011 is disposed of. By the impugned order, the 1st respondent has in fact admitted that the issue involved in the proposed amendment is same as in W.P.No.23732 of 2011. However, the petitioner's request for deferment was rejected on the sole ground that it is not in the interest of the Gove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the reasons sought to be explained in the counter-affidavit. It is also relevant to note that while considering the correctness of the earlier order passed by the 1st respondent in directing the petitioner to furnish a Bank Guarantee as a condition for deferment of proceedings, this Court held in W.P.No.4516 of 2013 as under:- "The impugned order passed by the 1st respondent directing the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee is destructive of the purpose for which power and discretion is conferred under Section 32(5) of the Act. This provision enables the 1st respondent to defer any proceedings on the ground that an appeal or other proceedings are pend....