SRUTHI AGENCIES Vs. C T O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner prays for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Sales Tax Authorities to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.16.98 lakhs pending disposal of T.R.C. filed by the petitioner against the order of the appellate Tribunal in T.A. No.776 of 1999. That appeal was filed questioning the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division revising the assessment made for the year 1993-94 in exercise of the powers under Section 20(2) of the APGST Act. THE revisional authority held that the petitioner purchased the goods viz., air coolers in the course of inter-State trade, took delivery of the goods from the common carrier pursuant to the endorsement made by out of State seller and then effected sales within the State. Thus, the sales effected by the petitioner were found to be first sales taxable under the Act whereas the contention of the petitioner has been that it is a second or subsequent sale of goods. THE petitioner has also been contending that he did not take delivery of the goods from the Carrier and that the same goods suffered local Sales-tax in the hands of the first seller by name Sahskrut Comfort Systems Ltd. THE Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed the revisional order of the Deputy Commissioner. Inter alia, it was held that the petitioner failed to produce proof that the goods have been subjected to tax under APGST Act in the hands of Sanskrut Comfort Systems Ltd. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred a Tax Revision Case. THE T.R.C. is pending in this Court. In the revision case, the finding of the Tribunal that, there is no proof to the effect that the goods have already suffered tax has been assailed in the light of the appellate authority's order in the case of M/s. Sanskrut Comfort Systems Ltd. THE other findings of the Tribunal are also being questioned inter alia on the ground that certain documents and relevant aspects were not considered by the Tribunal. THE occasion for filing this writ petition is the move of the first respondent to collect the tax determined by the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal. This Court held in Penguine Textile Ltd. vs. State of A.P. that in view of the embargo laid down in sub-section (6-A) of Section 22, the High Court has no power to grant stay of collection of disputed tax during the pendency of Tax Revision Case. THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.226, this Court can grant stay and it is a fit case to direct stay. In other words, the petitioner by invoking the jurisdiction under Art.226 is bidding the High Court to do what it is forbidden to do under the Statute.

(2.) VIEWED from another angle, the petitioner wants a mandamus to be issued to interdict the Sales-tax authorities from collecting the tax which they are duty bound to collect in view of the dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal. When the collection of tax cannot be said to be without authority of law and there is a statutory injunction based on discernible reasons against staying the tax recovery pending disposal of revision case by the High Court, we fail to appreciate how this Court could grant interim relief in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. In any case, having regard to the categorical findings of the Tribunal and the petitioner failing to make out a case of grave or undue hardship, the discretionary power even if it is assumed to exist, need not be exercised. The only power the High Court has, is to grant instalments under sub-section (6) of Sec.22. The petitioner may file a petition in the T.R.C. seeking permission to pay the tax in instalments. The writ petition is dismissed without costs.