IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 20265 of 2008 Between: S.Sailaja, W/o. Late Sri Sumanam Sridhar, D.No.23-7-47, Giri Street, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada-11 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal, O/o. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes; II Floor, C.C.T. Complex, M.J.Market Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Commercial Tax Officer, Seetharampuram Circle, D.No.74-2-20; 2nd Floor; K.M.R. Sons & Plaza, Yanamalakuduru Road, Opp: Krishnanagar, Vijayawada. 3 The Deputy Commissiner (?CT), No.II Division, D.No.74-2- 20; 2nd Floor; K.M.R. Sons & Plaza, Yanamalakuduru Road, Opp: Krishnanagar, Vijayawada. 4 The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, CCT Complex, M.J.Market Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. 5 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the Principal Secretary to the Governement , Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order dated 22-7-2008 passed by the 1st respondent in CCT's Ref: LV(2)/486/2008(Ex.P.1) and all other consequential, orders passed as illegal, arbitrary unjust and contrary to the facts and Law and to pass such other suitable orders as this Court may deems ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.R.R.VISWANATH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Division Bench of this Court made the following order: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 20265 of 2008 ORDER : [ Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari ] The writ petition is ﬁled seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the impugned order dated 22-7- 2008 passed by the ﬁrst respondent in CCT’s Ref.No. LV (2)/486/2008, rejecting the stay application seeking stay of collection of disputed tax of Rs.4,71,291-00 levied upon revision for the year 1999-2000 under APGST Act, 1957 on M/s. Teja Industrial Corporation, the erstwhile sole proprietory ﬁrm which belonged to the petitioner’s late husband and sought to be recovered from the petitioner as legal heir and all other consequential orders passed as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the facts and law and to pass such other suitable orders as this Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. It is stated that the petitioner is the widow of Sri Sumanam Sridhar, who died in the year 2004 in Thailand. He was one of the causalities in the tsunami that devasted the Asian countries including Thailand. The death certiﬁcate of the husband of the petitioner is ﬁled. The husband of the petitioner was the sole proprietor of the said ﬁrm, manufacturing and selling RCC pipes and collars and undertaking works contracts. Further he was registered as a dealer under the APGST Act, 1957 and was on the rolls of the second respondent. For the year 1999-2000, the late husband of the petitioner ﬁled an application to pay composition tax on the work contracts and it was accepted by the second respondent, who issued L-1 permission for composition. The husband of the petitioner was ﬁnally assessed by the second respondent through proceedings Assessment No.3505/99-2000 dated 15-3-2002. The balance of tax due of Rs.9,337/- arrived at by the second respondent upon ﬁnal assessment had been paid by her husband on 15-4-2002. 3. It is further stated that more than a year after the tragic death of her husband, the third respondent issued show cause notice to revise the assessment made by the second respondent. The petitioner informed the third respondent about the sad demise of her husband besides the fact that she was not aware of the business transactions of her husband but the third respondent concluded the revision and raised additional tax demand of Rs.4,71,291/- vide proceedings REF.No.48/2005-2006/G.I.No. 3505/99-2000 dated 10-4-2006. The second respondent gave eﬀect to the revision made by the third respondent and passed consequential orders GI.No.3505/99-2000 dated 10-4- 2006 and served a demand notice for Rs.4,72,291/-. Aggrieved by the revision made by the third respondent and the consequential demand notice served by the second respondent, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, on 29- 5-2006 and the same is still pending. 4. Further it is stated that the second respondent mounted pressure demanding the payment of disputed tax of Rs.4,72,291/-. The second respondent served an urgent notice in GI.No.3505/99-2000 dated 31-10-2007 demanding payment of disputed tax and also threatened her with action under various provisions of the statute. The petitioner made a representation to the Government on 05-11-2007 informing the tragic death of her husband and her precarious ﬁnancial position and requested for suspension of coercive steps for the collection of disputed tax till the disposal of the appeal by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. Thereupon, the ﬁfth respondent was kind enough to call for the remarks of the fourth respondent and directed the fourth respondent not to take coercive steps until further orders vide its Memo.No.61536/CT-IIII)/2007-1, dated 12-11-2007. Further the ﬁfth respondent through Memo.No.61536/CT-II (1)/2007 dated 13-5-2006 revoked the orders dated 12-11-2007 and requested the fourth respondent to take necessary action for the collection of tax arrears from her. Now the action of the ﬁfth respondent is very unfair. The remarks oﬀered by the fourth respondent to the ﬁfth respondent were not communicated to the petitioner. The fourth respondent had directed the Additional Comissioner (CT) to oﬀer its remarks on the revision made by the third respondent. In its remarks the Additional Commissioner (CT) vide UO.Note on CCT’s Ref.No.DMU/F1/132/2007, dated 06-5- 2008 stated inter alia that the turn over determined by the third respondent upon revision is not correct and unless the copy of the agreement between her late husband and APSIDC is examined, it is diﬃcult to determine he exact tax liability. It is stated that the dealer would be liable to pay some amount of tax but not the entire amount of tax assessed upon revision. 5. It is stated that the petitioner ﬁled Form XXII stay application before the ﬁrst respondent requesting stay of collection of the disputed tax but the ﬁrst respondent without considering the submissions made therein and without considering the balance of convenience rejected the stay application by a laconic and cryptic order stated supra. 6. Dr.SRR Viswanath, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the action of the ﬁfth respondent in revoking the earlier orders of suspension of coercive action for collection, though interim and permitting the fourth respondent to collect the disputed tax is totally unfair and against the Wednesbury Principle which is accepted into Indian Jurisprudence. The Additional Commissioner (CT), Policy in its remarks to the fourth respondent clearly found fault with the revision made by the third respondent. The rejecting of stay application is quite arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice. Further the ﬁrst respondent ignored the fact that the fourth respondent in its remarks to the ﬁfth respondent doubted the correctness of the tax demand of Rs.4,71,291/- raised upon revision. It is pertinent to mention here that the ﬁrst respondent ignored the important fact that her late husband was in possession of L-1 permission for the year 1999-2000 granted under Rule 6-B of APGST Rules, 1957 read with section 5-G of the APGST Act, 1957 and the same had not been cancelled. Hence, the tax is leviable only at 4%. 7. Sri K. Raji Reddy, the learned Special Standing Counsel for the Commercial Tax vehemently opposed the same and submitted that the amount received towards supply of RCC Pipes was assessed by the assessing authority under section 5-G as works contract receipt @ 2% from 01-4-1999 to 31-12-1999 and @ 4% from 01-1- 2000 to 31-3-2000 and the Revisional Authority found that the orders of the assessing authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and proposed the levy of tax on the sale of RCC pipes and collars @ 10% from 01-4-1999 to 31-12-1999 and from 01-1-2000 to 31-3-2000 @ 12% and revised accordingly under section 20 (2) of the APGST Act. The issue in question has been examined by the Revisional Authority with reference to the documentary evidence on record and speciﬁc rates as per the schedule of the agreements with APSIDC. Therefore, the Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal rejected the stay application. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Standing Counsel for the Commercial Tax. 9. We have gone through the impugned order and the facts and circumstances narrated by the petitioner in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the petition and also the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the main writ petition. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, the impugned order be and is hereby suspended till ﬁnalization of the appeal by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. 10. Under the above facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate that there shall be an interim stay of all further proceedings including the order impugned in the writ petition, subject to payment of 1/3rd of the disputed amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving credit to the amount if any already paid. However, it is also made clear that in pursuance of the impugned order, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner, pending ﬁnalization of the appeal by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner became widow due to the tragic death of her husband in Tsunami and the death of her husband culminated a wave of shock that had swept over the family could not and would not relieve the pains of agony and hardship. It is needless to observe that in this hour of profound grief and shock, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner in pursuance of the order impugned, till ﬁnalization of the appeal by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. 10. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN. 17-9-2008. I s L NB : Furnish CC in two days. // BY ORDER // I S L ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}