IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 8475 OF 2010 Between: M/s. D.S. Chandra Sekhar ..... PETITIONER AND Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Integrated Check Post, Naraharipet, Chittoor and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO) This writ petition has been instituted seeking a direction to the respondents for release of the Tata Hitachi Excavator confiscated by the first respondent – Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Integrated Check Post, Naraharipet, Chittoor district, by proceedings dated 2.12.2008 passed in G.I. No. 6502/2008-09. Against that order, the petitioner herein has carried the matter in appeal and the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kurnool, passed the order in Appeal No. 45/2009-10(CTR) on 8.3.2010, operative portion of which reads as under: “..In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that there is no table sale at the hands of the appellant, which is only inferred by the detention authority, and the detention authority is directed to initiate proceedings against QUIPPO for the recovery of the tax on the impugned transaction of sale, more so on their admission of such sale before the detention authority while participating in the impugned proceedings. Hence, I set aside the impugned detention order passed by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Integrated Check Post, Naraharipet, Chittoor, with the above directions and direct for the release of the goods detained and initiate proceedings against QUIPPO Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad, subjecting the impugned transaction taxable at their hands and recover the tax on the impugned transaction besides levy of penalty and interest. In the end the impugned detention order is set aside and is remanded with the above directions….” Inspite of this Appellate Authority’s order, the equipment namely Tata Hitachi Excavator has not been released and hence, the present writ petition has been instituted. The learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Tax Department submits that against the said order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner setting aside the assessment order and remanding the matter back for fresh consideration, revision proceedings have already been initiated. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would dispute that fact as no such notice has been received by the petitioner so far. Be that as it may, the Assessing Authority has assessed the tax liability as Rs.2,17,775/-. In view of the statement made by the learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, we need to strike a balance between the competing interests of the Revenue as well as the assessee/writ petitioner and hence, we proposed to direct the writ petitioner to pay substantial portion of the tax liability and also to make available the original Registration Certificate of the Tata Hitachi Excavator to the first respondent so that the same can be released pending further proceedings. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner has accepted our suggestion. Therefore, we direct that upon payment of a sum of Rs.1,17,775/- together with production of the original Registration Certificate of the Tata Hitachi Excavator, which is detained by the first respondent and further, on furnishing an undertaking that he will not alienate the excavator, the Tata Hitachi Excavator be released to the petitioner. It is open to the department to finalise the revision proceedings, which is stated to have been initiated already, duly following the principles of natural justice. The amount already paid shall be given credit to insofar as the amount directed to be paid by us. Deposit of the original Registration Certificate of the excavator and payment of the tax amount of Rs.1,17,775/- would abide by the result in the revision proceedings. In the meantime, it is also open to the department, in case it chooses, to proceed against QUIPPO from whom the petitioner is alleged to have purchased the excavator, duly paying the taxes. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao April 26, 2010 Copy within a week //BO// MAS