MAHAVEER ENTERPRISES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises Limited, has come in appeal against the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad, dated 18.05.2000. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a guarantor for payment of outstanding tax against M/s. Mahavir Combines Private Limited. The appellant signed a surety bond and guaranteed payment of any CST dues which would be recoverable from M/s. Mahavir Combines Private Limited in case the later defaulted on any such payment. This bond was given at the time when M/s. Mahavir Combines Private Limited obtained registration certificate as a dealer under the CST Act, 1956.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by this notice, the appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division. The A.D.C., rejected their appeal as not maintainable under the APGST Act, 1957 on two grounds. Firstly, that the appellant was not an assessee on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Department and the said notice was not issued in connection with assessment proceedings related to the appellant. Secondly, the A.D.C., held, that the notice issued by the C.T.O., was neither an order nor a proceeding as stipulated under Sec. 19 of the APGST Act, 1957 read with Rule 33 of the APGST Rules, 1957. The A.D.C. held, that as the appeal in question was filed against a notice which was not an order or proceeding passed in connection with the assessment proceeding of the appellant, he refused to admit the appeal and rejected the same at admission stage itself. The appellant has filed an appeal before us against this order of the A.D.C.

(3.) THE learned counsel has also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble A.P. High Court in the case of Gullapudi Someswara Rao Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad and others reported in, (2007) 6 VST 361. Relying on this judgment it is further submitted that the appeal is maintainable under the APGST Act, 1957, because, the Hon'ble A.P. High Court has held that when any dealer defaulted in making payments the person who has given surety bond "steps into his shoes". It is therefore, submitted that when that is the case the appellant has every right of appeal under the provisions of the APGST Act, 1957 and therefore the A.D.C., was wrong in not admitting their appeal and holding it as not maintainable under the APGST Act, 1957.