THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.3439, 3442 and 3484 of 2011 March 03, 2011 Between: M/s.Aditya Music India Private Limited, represented by its Director, Mr.Subhash Gupta … Petitioner And The Commercial Tax Officer, Barkatpura Circle, Hyderabad And others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.3439, 3442 and 3484 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner is a dealer on the rolls of the first respondent under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (the VAT Act). They are engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of audio cassettes – both audio tapes and compact discs. For the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, the petitioner was assessed by the first respondent by his order dated 20.6.2009. The second respondent however, in purported exercise of power under Section 32 of the VAT Act, revised the said order vide his proceedings dated 09.11.2009. By the said order the petitioner’s claim, for availing input tax credit on local purchases made by their manufacturing division and trading division separately in order to arrive at the net tax to be deferred by the manufacturing division and the net tax payable by the trading division separately, was not accepted. According to the second respondent the petitioner must avail input tax credit on the trading division and on manufacturing division separately. As a result thereof there was an upward revision of the tax levied. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeals being T.A.Nos.92, 93 and 94 of 2010 before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT). The petitioner statedly complied with the condition as required under the second proviso to Section 33(1) of the VAT Act. He then approached the third respondent by filing a revision seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax for three assessment years separately. By the impugned orders dated 24.1.2011, the third respondent declined to pass interim orders. Be it noted that the decision of this Bench in Maxworth Plywoods Private Ltd., Visakhapatnam v Asst. Commisioner (CT)[1] was brought to the notice of the third respondent. In the said judgment this Bench took the view that the assessing authority cannot insist on the assessee adopting a particular method which would deny them the benefit of utilization of the balance available tax deferment in its entirety, and instead pay tax; and the view of the assessing officer that the input tax credit must first be adjusted against the manufacturing activity and the balance against the trading activity, is neither a method authorized by law nor can such a method be forced on the assessee to their detriment. The Counsel for the petitioner strongly relies on Maxworth Plywoods Private Ltd., in support of his contention that, even though there is a prima facie strong case, and the chances of the petitioner succeeding in the Tax Appeal before the STAT is high, the third respondent had failed to properly exercise the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 33(6) of the VAT Act. This contention is refuted by the Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. The petitioner’s revision before the third respondent was based on a decision of this Court. Although the third respondent distinguished the same we are of the considered view that, at the stage of considering the revision under Section 33(6) of the VAT Act, the third respondent could not have ignored the same. We make it clear that we have not examined whether or not the decision is applicable to the cases on hand as the matter is pending before the STAT. Taking this into consideration, we deem it proper to stay collection of the disputed tax, for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 on condition of the petitioner depositing 40% of the disputed tax within a period of four weeks from today, after giving credit to the 25% which the petitioner paid while availing the remedy of appeals before the STAT. We request the STAT to dispose of the appeals expeditiously preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) March 03, 2011 NOTE: Dispatch order copy by 05.3.2011. (By order) YS [1] (2010) 51 APSTJ 147