BHARAT LITHO PRESS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions raise the question of the power of this Court to grant a stay of collection of tax pending a tax revision case preferred under section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.

(2.) AGAINST an order of assessment made by the assessing authority, an appeal is provided by section 19. A further appeal is provided by section 21 to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Apart from the above, against an order of assessment made, a power of revision is vested in the Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and the Commercial Tax Officer, by sub-section (2) of section 20. This power is confined to orders made or proceedings recorded by the authorities, officers or persons subordinate to them. Similarly, sub-section (1) of section 20 confers the power of revision upon the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. These powers are supposed to be exercised in the interest of Revenue. Against an order of the Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or the Commercial Tax Officer, under sub-section (2) of section 20, an assessee can file an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 21. Section 22 provides for a revision to the High Court against the orders of the Tribunal. Sub-section (2-A) of section 19 says that where an appeal is admitted under sub-section (1) of section 19, the appellate authority may, on an application for stay filed by the appellant, order stay of collection, subject to furnishing of such security and on payment of such part of the disputed tax within such time as may be prescribed, pending disposal of the appeal. Against an order passed by the appellate authority under sub-section (2-A), a revision petition is provided to the Joint Commissioner by sub-section (2-B ). The Act, however, does not confer any power upon the Appellate Tribunal to stay the collection of disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal. Such a power has been conferred only upon the Joint Commissioner. Sub-section (6) and sub-section (6-A) of section 21 read thus :

(3.) FROM a reading of the above sub-sections, it appears that pending a tax revision case, the tax has to be paid in accordance with the assessment made in the case. No stay shall be granted pending disposal of such revision except by the High Court, which "may in its discretion permit the petitioner to pay the tax in such number of instalments or give such other direction in regard to payment of tax as it thinks fit". In the face of express language of the Proviso to sub-section (6), it is idle to contend that even the High Court is deprived of the power to stay the collection of the tax pending the revision. The proviso expressly confers a discretion upon the High Court either to fix the appropriate number of instalments for payment of tax or give such other direction as it thinks regard to the language of the proviso, it cannot be said that the only order that the High Court can make is to fix the instalments, as contended by the learned Government Pleader. That is one type of order that the High Court can make. But it can also make appropriate direction with respect to the payment of tax as it thinks fit. It may mean that it can direct a certain portion of the tax to be paid and stay collection of the balance pending the revision. It is true, the proviso does not contemplate an absolute stay. It contemplates that at least some portion of tax should be paid. At the same time, it would be incorrect to contend that the direction to be made by the High Court should necessarily ensure the payment of the entire disputed tax pending, i. e. , before the disposal of the revision. We see no warrant for placing such a limited construction upon the words "give such other direction in regard to payment of tax as it thinks fit", occurring in the proviso.