Andhra HC (PreTelangana) Penguin Textiles Ltd., Hyderabad vs State Of A.P. on 24 September, 1999 Equivalent citations: 1999(6)ALD517, 1999(6)ALT72 ORDER P. Venkatarama Reddi, J. 1. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of Y. Bhaskar Rao, J., (as he then was) and Nasir. J, having found an apparent conflict of views in two decisions Bharath Litho Press v. State of A.P., 67 STC 48 and CMP No.17575 of 1992 in TRC No.78 of 1992, referred the question at issue to a Full Bench. The question as formulated by their Lordships in the opening sentence i.e., "whether a Revision lies to the High Court under Section 22 of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act against the order of the Appellate Tribunal" seems to be an accidental slip. It does not reflect the correct issue. The correct issue as indicated by the learned Judges in the same reference order is "whether the High Court has got power to grant stay of collection of the tax decided by the original authority and confirmed by the appellate authority; or whether the High Court has no power except ordering for payment of instalments." 2. We would like to recast the question little differently "Whether the High Court is empowered to grant stay of collection of disputed tax and penalty pending disposal of revision petition (TRC) presented to it under Section 22 of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') ? 3. The answer to the above question in turn depends on the interpretation of subsections (6) and (6A) of Section 22 of APGST Act, and the relative scope and ambit of these two provisions. Subsection (1) of Section 22 provides for revision to the High Court against the order of the Appellate Tribunal on a question of law. Subsection (6) provides that "notwithstanding that a petition has been preferred under subsection (1), tax shall be paid in accordance with the assessment made in the case, provided that the High Court may in its discretion permit the petitioner to pay the tax in such number of instalments, or give such other direction in regard to the payment of tax as it thinks fit." The 2nd proviso to subsection (6) though not very relevant may also be referred to have a complete picture. It reads: "Provided further, that if, as a result of the petition, any change becomes necessary in such assessment, the High Court may authorise the assessing authority to amend the assessment, and on such amendment being made, the excess amount paid by the dealer shall be refunded to him without interest, or the further amount of tax due from him shall be collected in accordance with the provisions of this Act, as the case may be." Then comes subsection (6A) which was introduced by APGST Amendment Act (Act 18 of 1985). The said subsection lays down: "The payment of tax and penalty, if any due in accordance with the order of the Appellate Tribunal in respect of which a petition has been preferred under subsection (1) shall not be stayed pending the disposal of the petition, but if such amount is reduced as a result of such petition, the excess tax paid shall be refunded in accordance with the provisions of Section 33B." 4. Before the introduction of subsection (6A) in the year 1985, the issue whether under subsection (6), the High Court had power to grant stay of collection of tax or whether the power vested "From a reading of the above subsections, it appears that pending a tax revision case, the tax has to be paid in accordance with the assessment made in the case. No stay shall be granted pending disposal of such revision except by the High Court, which "may in its discretion permit the petitioner to pay the tax in such number of instalments or give such other direction in regard to payment of tax as it thinks fit." In the face of express language of the proviso to subsection (6), it is idle to contend that even the High Court is deprived of the power to stay the collection of the tax pending the revision. The proviso expressly confers a discretion upon the High Court either to fix the appropriate number of instalments for payment of tax or give such other direction as it thinks fit with respect to payment of tax disputed in the revision. Again, having regard to the language of the proviso, it cannot be said that the only order that the High Court can make is to fix the instalments, as contended by the learned Government Pleader. That is one type of order that the