THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NO.25917 OF 2009 08-12-2009 BETWEEN; M/s.ITC LIMITED, rep. by its Vice President Raja Parasuram ...Petitioner vs. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NO.25917 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) The order dated 11-09-2009 of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribuna (STAT), Hyderabad is assailed in this writ petition. The petitioner is an assessee under the APGST Act, 1957 (for short the 1957 Act”) and the CST Act, 1956 (for short “ the 1956 Act”). It made a application for incentives for its industrial expansion in terms o G.O.Ms.No.108 dated 20-05-1996. The competent authorit issued an eligibility certificate for a period of 14 years on 07-01-199 granting incentives by way of a sales tax deferment over and above th base turnover, for a period of 14 years ending 31-03-2012 subject to ceiling of Rs.615,82,00,480/-. On the basis of this eligibilit certificate, the 3rd respondent-assessing officer finalised the assessment o the petitioner for the year 2004-05 under the 1957 and 1956 Acts. O 25-03-2008, under separate orders, the assessing authority allowe deferment of tax. However, these orders were revised by the 2n respondent on the ground that the assessing authority had allowed exces deferral tax to an extent of Rs.1,34,74,093/-. After due process, of a proposal and considering the objections o the petitioner to such proposal for revision, the 2nd respondent b the order dated 23-04-2009 confirmed the proposals and disallowed th tax deferment to a tune of Rs.1,34,74,093/-. The petitioner eventually file an appeal before the STAT but failed to make any pre-deposit assumin that there was no dispute regarding the tax. By the order impugned the STAT concluded that the appeal of th petitioner involved a dispute of tax in an amount of Rs.1,76,12,980/- unde the provisions of the 1957 Act and Rs.69,32,351/- under the provisions o CST Act; this warranted a pre-deposit of 25% of the disputed tax as condition precedent for the admission of the appeal under Section 21 o the 1957 Act; since the petitioner failed to deposit the amount of 25% a mandated by the provisions of the Section 21 of the 1957 Act, rejected th appeal. Herein, the petitioner does not pursue the contention that it is no liable to make the pre-deposit. This contention is formally eschewed in ora argument. It is however contended by Sri M.V.J.K.Kumar, th learned counsel for the petitioner that on failure to make the pre-deposi the Tribunal ought to have returned the appeal with a liberty to th petitioner to resubmit the appeal if so desired after making the pre-depos and that the rejection of the appeal was not warranted. The learne Special Standing Counsel for the Commercial Taxes, Sri P.Balaji Varma does not contest this contention. In the circumstances, the order of the STAT, Hyderabad dated 11-09 2009 in AR No.427/2009 shall be construed as a return of the appeal fo the failure to deposit the amount as warranted under Section 21 of th APGST Act, 1957. If the petitioner makes the deposit of the amount as pe Sec.21 of the 1957 Act within one week from today the STAT sha entertain the appeal and proceed to adjudicate upon it in accordance wit law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of at the stage of admission No costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 8th DECEMBER 2009. Note: Issue CC as soon as Possible. (B/O) TSNR