AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Honourable Mr. Justice R. Sudhakar
This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the first Respondent in S.P. No. 31 of 2011 in A.P. No. VAT 62/2011 dated 20.07.2011, quash the same insofar as the condition regarding the furnishing of Bank Guarantee for the balance tax of Rs. 4,28,468/- and the entire penalty of Rs. 11,83,494/- is concerned and further direct the first Respondent to grant stay till disposal of the appeal in A.P. No. VAT 62/2011.
Heard Mr. A. Chandrasekaran, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. TR. Janarthanam, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents.
By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
In respect of the assessment year 2006-2007, an assessment order was passed on 17.05.2011 in TIN No. 33515501651/2006-07, whereby there is a dispute with regard to the tax in a sum of Rs. 11,83,494/- and penalty of Rs. 11,83,494/- . An appeal was filed and pending the appeal, the Petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 7,55,026/- leaving the balance of Rs. 4,28,468/- . Insofar as the balance tax due and the penalty of Rs. 11,83,494/- , a stay petition was filed in S.P. No. 31/2011 which came to be ordered on 20.07.2011 directing the Petitioner to file a Bank Guarantee for the entire balance of tax and the penalty on or before 19.08.2011 with a further direction that the Bank Guarantee could be alive for about six months.
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner pleads that since the substantial tax has been paid and considering the prima facie case, the condition imposed on the Petitioner to furnish the Bank Guarantee for the balance tax due and the entire penalty is an onerous condition, for which the Petitioner will have to deposit the entire amount for the purpose of getting the Bank Guarantee.
The authority while passing the order in the stay petition has not been taken into consideration the substantial tax deposited by the Petitioner. The levy of penalty is an issue that can be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal. Considering the fact that the substantial tax liability has already been paid consequent to the assessment and the Petitioner has made 25% deposit in terms of the Appellate Authority''s interim order and considering the financial hardship pleaded, also taking note of the balance of convenience, this Court is inclined to modify the order passed in stay petition to the effect that the Petitioner shall submit a personal bond for the balance tax due and the entire penalty within a period of two weeks from today. The Appellate Authority is also directed to dispose of the appeal on its own merits in due course.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above modification. No costs.