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 : 20273 of 2008 Between: M/s.Charbhai Bidi Works, 6-3-582,Mubarak Manzil Post Box No.81,Khairatabad, Hyderabad rep.by its General Managwer,Aijaz Waseem ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Karimnagar Division Karimnagar 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Warangal Division, KUDA complex, Hanumakonda, Warangal District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue any appropriate writ order or direction more particularly a writ of Certiorari and call for the records on the ﬁle of the ﬁrst respondent in his proceedings in NOTICE UNDER SECTION 29 OF THE APVAT ACT 2005 dated 10.9.2008 and quash the same as it is illegal, arbitrary,and contrary to various judgments of this Hon`ble court and issue any other appropriate writ order or direction as this Hon`ble court may be pleased to deem fit and proper Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.DANTU.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: 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 : 20273 of 2008 O R D E R : [ Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari ] The writ petition is ﬁled seeking a writ of certiorari and call for the records of the ﬁrst respondent in his proceedings/notice under section 29 of the AP Value Added Tax Act, 2005 vide notice TIN. No.28750184534, dated 10-9-2008, wherein the petitioner was directed to pay a tax of Rs.33,57,672-00 for years from 20005-06 to 2007-08 under AP Value Added Tax Act and CST, which is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to various judgments of this Court and to pass suitable orders as this Court may deems ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. It is stated that the petitioner is a registered dealer under APGST Act, Value Added Tax dealer in bidis and also registered dealer under CST Act. The ﬁrst respondent passed an assessment order dated 04-8-2008 in Form No.305 under AP Value Added Tax Act, levying a tax of Rs.9,09,531-00 against the petitioner. The said order was served on the petitioner on 06-8- 2008. Thereafter receiving the order, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1,13,691-00 vide DD.No.044460 towards 12.5% of the disputed tax and ﬁled an appeal in Form APP-400 before the second respondent on 05-9-2008 challenging this order on various grounds. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also ﬁled an application for stay of collection of disputed tax in Form APP- 406. After passing the order, the ﬁrst respondent also passed an order in Form Vat-203 dated 21-8-2008 levying a penalty of Rs.2,27,383-00 at 25% of the disputed tax for the year 2005-06. The ﬁrst respondent passed an order in Form Vat-305, dated 21- 8-2008 levying an interest of Rs.2,54,669/- against the petitioner for the said period. The petitioner ﬁled two separate appeals against those orders before the second respondent on 05-9-2008 and ﬁled applications for stay of collection of disputed penalty and interest. 3. It is further stated that the tax period 2006-07, the ﬁrst respondent passed assessment order dated 04-8-2008 in Form VAT-305, under AP Value Added Tax Act, levying a tax of Rs.6,90,546-00 against the petitioner. The order was served on the petitioner on 6-8-2008. After receiving the same, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.86,318-00 vide DD.No.044461 towards 12.5% of the disputed tax and ﬁled an appeal in Form APP-400 before the second respondent on 05-8-2008 challenging the order on various grounds. Along with the appeal the petitioner ﬁled an application for stay of collection of disputed tax in Form APP-406. After passing the order, the ﬁrst respondent also passed an order in Form VAT-203, dated 21-8- 2008 levying a penalty of Rs.1,72,637/- at 25% of the disputed tax for the year 2006-07. The ﬁrst respondent also passed an order in Form VAT-305, dated 21-8-2008 levying an interest of Rs.1,10,487/- against the petitioner for the said period. The petitioner ﬁled two separate appeals against those orders before the second respondent on 5-9-2008 and also stay application seeking stay of collection of disputed penalty and interest. 4. It is also stated that the tax for the period 2007-08, the ﬁrst respondent passed assessment order dated 04-8-2008 in Form VAT-305 under AP Value Added Tax Act, levying a tax of Rs.2,70,897/- against the petitioner. The order was served on the petitioner on 6-8-2008. After receiving the order, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.33,862/- vide DD.No.044462 towards 12.5% of the disputed tax and ﬁled an appeal in Form APP 400 before the second respondent on 05-8-2008 challenging the order on various grounds. Along with the appeal, the petitioner ﬁled an application for stay of collection of disputed tax in Form APP 406. After passing the order, the ﬁrst respondent also passed an order in Form VAT-203 dated 21-8-2008 levying a penalty of Rs.67,724/- at 25% of the disputed tax for the years 2007-08. The ﬁrst respondent also passed an order in Form VAT- 305 dated 21-8-2008 levying an interest of Rs.10,836/- against the petitioner for the said period. The petitioner ﬁled two separate appeals against those orders before the second respondent on 5-9-2008 and ﬁled applications seeking stay of collection of disputed penalty and interest. 5. Further it is stated that for the year 2007-08 the ﬁrst respondent passed assessment order dated 04-8-2008 under CST Act levying a tax of Rs.4,98,420/- against the petitioner. The said order was served on the petitioner on 6-8-2008. After receiving the order, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.62,303/- through DD.No.044463 towards 12.5 % of the disputed tax and filed an appeal in Form APP 400 before the second respondent on 05-8-2008 challenging the said order on various grounds. Along with the appeal, the petitioner ﬁled an application seeking stay of collection of disputed tax in Form 406. After passing the order, the ﬁrst respondent passed an order dated 21-8-2008 levying a penalty of Rs.1,24605/- at 25% of the disputed tax for the year 2007-08 under CST Act. The ﬁrst respondent passed an order dated 21-8-2008 levying an interest of Rs.19,937/- against the petitioner for the said period. The petitioner ﬁled two separate appeals before the second respondent on 05-9-2008 and ﬁled applications seeking stay of collection of disputed penalty and interest. 6. It is also stated that on 05-9-2008, the petitioner ﬁled 12 separate appeals for the tax periods 2005-06, 2006-07, 2006- 07, 2007-08 and 2007-08 under CST under AP VAT Act and CST Act and also ﬁled individual applications seeking stay of collection of disputed tax, penalty and interest. All the 12 appeals are still pending before the second respondent. The Commercial Tax Oﬃcer, Jagtial was also informed about the ﬁling of these appeals immediately. While the matters stood thus, the ﬁrst respondent herein issued notice under section 29 of the AP VAT Act, 2005 (Garnishee Notice) dated 10-9- 2008 to several banks where the petitioner is operating its accounts, directing those banks to pay an amount of Rs.33,57,672-00 which is the disputed amount in all the 12 appeals ﬁled before the second respondent. On 11-9-2008 the counsel of the petitioner ﬁled a letter before the ﬁrst respondent enclosing proof of ﬁling of the appeals and bringing it to his notice the ﬁling of appeals and stay applications before the second respondent and requested him not to take any coercive steps to recover the amount. But the ﬁrst respondent refused to withdraw Garnishee notice and informed that unless and until stay order is produced, he would recover the amount as mentioned in the notice. Now the apprehension of the petitioner is that the second respondent will take some more time to number our appeals and hear the stay applications and in the meanwhile if the ﬁrst respondent recovers the disputed amounts, the petitioner will suﬀer irreparable loss and hardship. 7. Sri Dantu Srinivas, the learned counsel for the petitioner had taken this court through various contentions raised in the writ petition and submitted that in pursuance of the garnishee notice, more than 50% of the tax due has been withdrawn from one of the accounts of the petitioner by the ﬁrst respondent. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax. 9. We have gone through the impugned garnishee notice and also the facts and circumstances narrated by the petitioner in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the petition, the impugned garnishee notice be and is hereby suspended till ﬁnalization of the appeal by the second respondent. Under the above facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission and direct that there shall be interim stay of the impugned garnishee notice, subject to payment of 50% of the amount due within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving credit to the amounts already withdrawn by the department. However, it is also made clear that the ﬁrst respondent shall not take any coercive steps in pursuance of the impugned garnishee notice, pending ﬁnalization of the appeals by the second respondent. 10. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 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{TRK}