THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION Nos.28632 and 28633 of 2011 Dated:01.11.2011 Between: M/s.Patra Integrated Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, (since merged with Cholayil Pvt.Limited), Rep.by its Authorised Signatory, Mr.N.Mathivanan, No.8, J Block, 6th Avenue, Anna Nagar East, Chennai – 600 102. …Petitioner And Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Nellore Division, Nellore, And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION Nos.28632 and 28633 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner – a company incorporated, is a dealer registered under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, on the rolls of the first respondent herein. The final assessment was completed for the years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 on 17.08.2004. Initially, the Deputy Commissioner passed provisional assessment orders on 10.12.2002. The petitioner filed writ petitions. This Court stayed the collection of differential tax up to 31.12.2002, directing the petitioner to pay the differential tax from 01.01.2003. Therefore, the first respondent took note of the fact that an amount of Rs.01,04,33,670/-, being the balance as per the final assessment for 2001-2002, is covered by the stay granted by the High Court in writ petition, being W.P.No.25119 of 2002. The balance amount of Rs.08,12,410/- was demanded. A notice dated 30.04.2011 was issued proposing to levy interest; an amount of Rs.33,69,000/- for 2001-2002 and Rs.78,94,811/- for 2002-2003. The petitioner then filed appeals before the second respondent along with the applications for stay. Statedly, the applications for stay were heard on 20.09.2011, but no orders were passed. Therefore, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitions were filed on 21.10.2011. During the preliminary hearing on 24.10.2011 we directed the Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes to report the Court the latest position. Today it is brought to our notice that the matters were heard on 31.10.2011 and orders are likely to be passed. The Counsel for the petitioner, however, apprehends that even though applications for stay are pending before the second respondent, the first respondent is insisting for payment of the interest amounts for the two assessment years and also is likely to initiate recovery proceedings. Relying on Anab-e-Shahi Wines & Distilleries (P) Limited v Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Secunderabad Division Nampally, Hyderabad[1], the Counsel for the petitioner would contend that when applications for stay are pending, the recovery of tax by resorting to coercive proceedings is not warranted. In the case on hand, against the notices dated 30.04.2011, demanding interest in the delayed payments, the petitioner filed appeals sometime in September 2011. According to the Special Counsel, the matters were adjourned by the second respondent only at the instance of the dealer. Whatever be the reason, there has been some delay, which could have been avoided by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. While exercising interlocutory jurisdiction to consider the applications for stay of the demanded tax, all the appellate/revisional authorities under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (VAT Act), must bear in mind that if the orders of stay are not passed, the proceedings for recovery would have to be initiated as there is nothing in the VAT Act which prohibits the Assessing Officer from doing so. In case the tax is recovered by coercive methods and ultimately the appeal is allowed, one could imagine the difficulties the dealer might face in getting the refund of the tax paid. In one way, the tardy disposal of applications for stay would result in multiplicity of proceedings and ultimately results in unsatisfactory tax compliance under the VAT Act. We, therefore, are inclined to observe that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes may look into these aspects and issue necessary guidelines under Section 77 of the VAT Act in this regard. Insofar as these matters are concerned, as the matters were heard on 31.10.2011, we hope that the second respondent would pass orders immediately, at least by 03.11.2011. The writ petitions, with the above observations, stand disposed of accordingly. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) _____________________ (SANJAY KUMAR, J) 01.11.2011 vs [1] (1995) 98 STC 386