OSMANIA UNIVERSITY Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-Osmania University chooses to challenge the order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 12-8-2002 through which order the 2nd respondent completed final assessment of professional tax in respect of Non-teaching staff and Class IV employees of the Osmania University for the assessment year 1998-1999 an aised a demand to the tune of Rs.45,20,400.00 towards professional tax.

(2.) During the course of hearing of the writ petition, Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Osmania University had deducted professional tax from the Non- teaching staff and Class IV employees of the University and paid the amounts to the Department, but not in appropriate forms, however the details of which have been furnished to the Department. He also stated that in view of G.O.Ms.No.48, dt. 15-3-1997 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh keeping in abeyance recovery of enhanced professional tax from the Non-Gazetted employees of the State Government till further orders, the University sincerely believed that the Non- teaching staff and Class IV employees of the University are also entitled for similar benefit in terms of the above G.O. and as such collected professional tax from the above employees at the pre-enhanced rates and paid to the Department. He also stated that though details have been furnished to the Department, however it appears that the said information has not reached the authorities, with the result the 2nd respondent passed orders, dated 12-8-2002 deciding the liability to the tune of Rs.45,20,400/- towards professional tax relating to Non-teaching staff and Class IV employees of the University for the assessment year 1998-99 on the premise that pursuant to the show cause notice no particulars were furnished. Learned counsel stated that in view of the factual position as indicated above the order passed by the 2nd respondent could not be sustained as the University had already collected professional tax and paid to the Department, though not in appropriate form. He also submitted that since the respondents are now seeking to recover the professional tax as determined in the impugned order, if the order impugned is not set aside the University would suffer irreparable loss and therefore, seeks appropriate direction.

(3.) We have also heard the learned Special Government pleader for Taxes for the respondents, who justifies the order impugned on the premise that it is the University which has to be blamed for having not submitted the details, which were required pursuant to the show cause notice. It is also stated that under the scheme of the Act the University is under obligation to collect and pay professional tax giving details in a particular proforma and failure of such duty would attract penal action also against the University.