COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER Vs. SRI K. NAVEEN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Contempt Case is filed by the respondents in W.P. No.41273 of 2015 alleging wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in the said Writ Petition on 18.02.2016.

(2.) Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that W.P. No.41273 of 2015 was filed by the respondent-contemnor to declare the action of the Commercial Tax Officer, Vijayawada-II, in issuing a provisional attachment notice dated 08.12015, to respondents 3 to 6 and the 8th respondent-Banks and two others (respondents 7 and 9) in the Writ Petition and to withhold the amounts due from them to him pending finalisation of the assessment proceedings, as illegal and without jurisdiction.

(3.) In its order in W.P. No.41273 of 2015 dated 18.02.2016, this Court observed that, in terms of Sec. 27(2)(a) of the A.P. VAT Act, power is conferred on the competent authority, even during the pendency of assessment proceedings, to attach provisionally any property belonging to the dealer; while it could not be said with certainty that the amount still lying with respondents 7 and 9 would not fall within the ambit of Sec. 27(2)(a) of the Act, it did appear that, on a cheque being issued by them in the petitioner's favour, it may fall within the ambit of the word "property" as used in Sec. 27(2)(a) of the Act. This Court thereafter noted that the respondent contemnor had filed an affidavit of undertaking dated 17.02.2016 stating that the amounts due from the 9th respondent (Sri Chaitanya Group of Institutions), by way of an account payee cheque, would be deposited with the 5th respondent i.e. M/s.Axis Bank Limited, Vijayawada-II; and he undertook not to withdraw the said amount that would be paid by way of account payee cheque, and it would be deposited in the 5th respondent-Bank, till a final assessment order was passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Vijayawada-II. This Court also noted the apprehension expressed by Sri S. Suri Babu, Learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, that acceptance of such an undertaking may well result in the respondent-contemnor withdrawing the entire amount from the bank on the date on which an assessment order was passed leaving the department high and dry, and preventing them from recovering the tax, if any, due from the respondent-contemnor. This Court then recorded the submission of Sri M.V.J.K. Kumar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner (respondent-contemnor herein), that the petitioner was present in Court and he had been instructed, by the petitioner, to state that, for a period of one week after the assessment order was communicated to him, Axis Bank Limited could be directed not to release the money to him; and, in the interregnum, it would be open to either party to take necessary action in accordance with law.