2022 (11) TMI 494

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of India seeking the following relief:- "...... to issue a Writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus setting aside the impugned Garnishee Notice in Form VAT 206 dt.25.02.2020 in R.C.No.TIN.28498395431/DCTO/SKHT/ 2019-20 issued by the fourth respondent to the fifth respondent Bank for the recovery of tax and penalty amounting to Rs.1,09,38,116/- for the tax period October, 2012 to March, 2014 (APVAT) (Tax and Penalty) as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the interim orders passed by this Hon'ble Court and to pass such other order or orders....." 3. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and the material would show that the 1st respondent conducted audit on the pet....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e 3rd respondent conducted audit on the petitioner company for the tax period October, 2012 to March, 2014 which resulted in passing of assessment order in Form VAT 305 dated 24.11.2014. The said assessment order again resulted in excess Input Tax Credit of Rs.8,58,301/-. The 3rd respondent, in exercise of revisional powers under Section 32(2) of the APVAT Act, 2005, passed an order, revising the assessment order passed by the 2nd respondent. On 11.01.2018, the 1st respondent has passed an effectual order giving effect to the revision order passed by the 3rd respondent, which resulted in tax due of Rs.18,24,605/-. 6. Questioning the order passed by the revisional authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before APVAT Appellate Tribun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....osited a sum of Rs.6,70,727/- being 25% of the penalty amount on 03.08.2018. However, the 4th respondent issued an urgent notice on 01.02.2020, stating that the petitioner had obtained interim orders both from this Court as well as from the Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal) Vijayawada both on penalty and tax and has not complied with the said interim orders and therefore, directed the petitioner to pay the entire tax and penalty amounting to Rs.1,09,38,116/-. The 4th respondent issued Garnishee Notice under Section 29 of the AP VAT Act vide proceedings in Form 206 dated 25.02.2020 for recovery of Tax and penalty amounting to Rs.1,09,38,116/-. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned Garnishee Notice issued by th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ial proceedings came to be initiated. It is further specifically stated in the counter that the revisional authority i.e., Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chittoor has not revised the entire orders passed by the assessing authorities and the revised and restricted Input Tax Credit claimed by the petitioner is only based on the revisional orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chittoor. The jurisdiction Commercial Tax Officer is said to have passed the effectual orders and determined the balance tax payable by the petitioner and also levied penalty. 12. Various other circumstances were narrated in the counter to show that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed. The calculation memo, which is said to....