LAWS(APH)-1999-9-123

PENGUIN TEXTILES LTD Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On September 24, 1999
PENGUIN TEXTILES LTD., HYDERABAD Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench of this Court consisting of Y. Bhaskar Rao, J. (as he then was) and Nasir, J., having found an apparent conflict of views in two decisions Bharath Litho Press vs. State of A.P. and C.M.P. No.17575 of 1992 in T.R.C. No.78 of 1992, referred the question at issue to a Full Bench. The question as formulated by their Lordships in the opening sentence i.e., "whether a Revision lies to the High Court under Section 22 of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act against the order of the appellate Tribunal" seems to be an accidental slip. It docs not reflect the correct issue. The correct issue as indicated by the learned Judges in the same reference order is "whether the High Court has got power to grant stay of collection of the tax decided by the original authority and con firmed by the appellate authority; or whether the High Court has no power except ordering for payment of instalments".

(2.) We w ould like to recast the question little differently- "Whether the HighCourt is empowered to grant stay of collection of disputed tax and penalty pending disposal of revision petition (T.R.C.) presented to it under Section 22 of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, (hereinafter referred to as the'Act')?

(3.) The answer to the above question in turn depends on the interpretation of sub-sections (6) and (6-A) of Section 22 of APGST Act, and the relative scope and ambit of these two provisions^ Sub-section (1) of Section 22 provides for revision to the High Court against the order of the appellate Tribunal on a question of law. Sub-section (6)provides that "notwithstanding that a petition has been preferred under sub-sec.(l), tax shall be paid in accordance with the assessment made in the case, provided that the High Court may in its discretion permit the petitioner to pay the tax in such number of instalments, or give such other direction in regard to the payment of tax as it thinks fit". The 2nd proviso to sub-sec.(6) though not very relevant may also be referred to have a complete picture. It reads: