TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 716
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the VAT Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, the petitioners / appellants are before us in the present writ petition. 2. The 4th respondent assessed the petitioners to CST vide Assessment Order in A.O. No.99326 dated 19.02.2018, wherein he determined the total turnover and net turnover of the petitioners as Rs.2,53,16,290/- and Rs.54,33,440/- respectively and fixed the exempted turnover at Rs.1,98,82,850/- out of the total turnover, as the said amount pertains to export sales covered by the relevant H forms and accordingly, passed the Assessment Order. (a) Subsequently the 2nd respondent issued pre-revision show cause notice dated 31.03.2020 to the petitioners and passed the D.C. Order No.ZH3707210D54231 dated 22.06.2021 under Section 32 of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, "the AP VAT Act, 2005‟) and proceeded to revise the original Assessment Order dated 19.02.2018. By virtue of the revised order, the 2nd respondent denied the exemption granted to the petitioners on export sales for a turnover of Rs.1,98,82,850/- and levied the tax @ 5% on the said turnover. The tax burden on levy comes to Rs.9,94,143/- for the Assessment Year 2013-14. According to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....022 before the AP VAT Appellate Tribunal, Visakhaptnam and also filed stay application before the 3rd respondent appraising the grounds of appeal. While filing appeal, the petitioners made mandatory deposit of 25% of the disputed tax. Though the 3rd respondent has, perused the formidable grounds projected by the petitioners in their appeal and made a note of it, however, instead of granting stay without imposing further conditions in view of the strong case of the petitioners in the appeal, imposed onerous condition of depositing additional 25% of the disputed tax. Learned counsel would strongly urge that the mandatory deposit of 25% would be sufficient to grant stay without directing further deposit. To buttress his argument, he relied upon the judgment dated 22.06.2018 of the Division Bench of the common High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in M/s. Sri Dedeepriya Paints v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer 1 2019 (107) Taxmann.com 377 (Andhra Pradesh & Telangana). He also relied upon the judgment dated 02.03.2020 in W.P.No.3954/2020 & batch passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Telangana. He thus prayed to set aside the order of the 3rd respondent to the extent of d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e instant case, following Section 33(6)(a), the petitioners filed stay application before the 3rd respondent and said authority passed the order dated 26.10.2022 as follows: "The dealer filed the relevant documentary evidence before the Revision Authority except the purchase order copy placed by the foreign buyer on Indian Exporter. The case Laws relied upon by the dealer clarified that it is not mandatory to produce Foreign Buyer Purchase Order / agreement before the assessing authority, but Foreign Buyer Purchase Order No. & Date must be produced for finalization of the assessment. Hence, I opine that it requires further verification of the connected records with reference to the provisions of the CST Act, 1956. Since, the appeal is pending before the VAT Appellate Tribunal, the dealers have paid 25% disputed tax while filing appeal. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I feel it just and proper to grant stay of collection of the disputed tax on a condition that the appellant-petitioner shall pay 50% of the disputed tax within 15 days of the service of the order and the taxes already paid if any shall be given credit. The stay will be in force....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of 12.5% of the disputed tax and penalty would automatically suspend the realization of the remainder tax liability. It may me apposite to note that the attention of the Bench had not been drawn to Section 31(3)(a) & (b) of the A.P. VAT Act.......(xxx)" 6. If the argument of the learned counsel is accepted, then, the aforesaid provisions giving discretionary power to the appellate authority and thereafter, to the revisional authority to stay the collection of balance tax/penalty in dispute pending hearing of the appeal, would become otiose. Furthermore, the Special Leave Petition against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed in limini and therefore, no declaration of law can be said to have been made by the Apex Court on this score." 8. Thus, we are unable to read a binding precedent declared in Sri. Dedeepriya Paints's case (1 cited supra) that pre-deposit of 12.5% of the tax/penalty in dispute for the institution of the appeal, would automatically suspend the realization of the remainder of tax/penalty in dispute." (f) Thus, the Division Bench held that in view of the express provision under Section 31(3)(a) & (b) of the AP VAT Act, 2005, observations ma....