HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM and HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.23164 of 2011 ORDER:- (Per HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM) Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P.Balaji Varma, learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, for respondents. 2. The petitioner assails the impugned demand notice dated 27.07.2011 and final notice under Section 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short ‘the 2005 Act’), dated 04.08.2011. The petitioner is a dealer registered on the rolls of the third respondent. For the financial years 2009-10 and 2010- 11 (upto 12/2010), monthly returns were submitted and claiming input tax credit for several items as items used as inputs in its manufacturing process. Orders of assessment for the two years in question were served on the petitioner on 23.05.2011. The petitioner however filed appeals before the second respondent on 19.07.2011, not within the period of 30 days being the period of limitation for preferring appeal, but within the period of further 30 days, a delay which could be condoned by the second respondent appellate authority if sufficient cause was shown. The petitioner states to have filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court since the issue of disallowance of input tax credit on Coal was held against the petitioner in other cases in all departmental appeals and confirmed by this Court by the judgment dated 30.12.2010 in W.P.No.475 of 2009 and batch. Be that as it may. 3. As in the appeals filed by the petitioner on 19.07.2011 along with applications for condonation of delay, no orders were passed by the second respondent appellate authority on the applications for condonation of delay and applications for stay filed therewith, the third respondent issued the impugned demand notice dated 27.07.2011 for Rs.3,19,43,524/- for the two assessment years in question comprising Rs.1,72,70,699/- and Rs.1,46,72,825/- for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. Thereafter by the second of the impugned notices (being a final notice under Section 29 of the 2005 Act), the third respondent directed the Central Bank of India, Corporate Finance Branch, Hyderabad, to pay the amount representing the petitioner’s tax liability, from the overdraft account of the petitioner, failing which coercive steps under Section 29(6) of the 2005 Act would be initiated against the Bank. 4. In view of the judgment of this Court dated 30.12.2010 in W.P.No.475 of 2009 and batch, the input tax credit on Coal claimed by the petitioner as one of the grounds in the appeals preferred by him against the orders of assessment dated 23.05.2011 is not liable to be entertained. The input tax credit on Coal for the assessment years in question is Rs.78,75,990/- and Rs.1,21,48,569/- respectively. As the jurisdictional High Court has determined this aspect, even the appellate authority cannot grant any relief including interim relief in respect of the claim of input tax credit on Coal. 5. However, as the petitioner has filed the appeals beyond the period of initial 30 days but within the further period of 30 days available for preferring an appeal, but with an application for condonation of delay, we consider it inequitable that coercive steps under Section 29 of the Act should be pursued even before the second respondent appellate authority passes orders on the petitioner’s application for condonation of the delay in preferring the appeal and if the delay is condoned; even before the appellate authority takes a view on the petitioner’s application for interim relief in the appeals preferred by it. 6. Accordingly, on condition that the petitioner pays the amount of Rs.2,00,25,000/- (Rupees two crores twenty five thousands only) (the amount representing the input tax credit on Coal disallowed in the orders of assessment) after taking credit for amounts, if any, paid pursuant to the two orders of assessment dated 23.05.2011, the third respondent shall keep in abeyance the order dated 04.08.2011 exercising powers under Section 29 of the 2005 Act, calling upon the petitioner’s banker to pay the amount of disputed tax, till the second respondent appellate authority passes an order on the petitioner’s applications for condonation of delay in the appeals preferred by it on 19.07.2011; and if the delay is condoned, till the second respondent passes an order on the petitioner’s applications for interim relief in the two appeals preferred by it. Thereafter, the third respondent would be at liberty to pursue appropriate process in accordance with law for recovery of the amounts due, depending on the outcome of the orders passed by the second respondent appellate authority. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall however be no order as to costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _____________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR,J 23rd August 2011 CVRK Note: Issue copy within two days. B/o CVRK