Jayalakshmi Agencies Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Legal) and ors.

Jayalakshmi Agencies vs Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Legal) and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Nov 29, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/446542

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/446542
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: B. Sudershan Reddy and ;T. Ch. Surya Rao, JJ.
Decided On: Nov 29, 2004
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 21296 of 2004
Subject: Sales Tax/VAT
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation...

Key legal issue: Sales Tax/VAT
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jayalakshmi Agencies

Advocate M.V.J.K. Kumar, Adv.

Respondent

Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Legal) and ors.

Advocate Government Pleader

Legal References

Reported In: (2008)11VST257(AP)

Excerpt

.....nor is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - the revisional authority failed to take into consideration the fact that the assessing authority revised the assessment order vide proceedings dated february 19, 2004 and found the balance of rs......a printed pro forma. in our considered opinion, this practice of disposal of the stay petitions by the appellate authorities in printed pro formas is not proper since they do not reflect any application of mind by the appellate authorities to the facts in each case. the appellate authority while exercising its power to grant or refuse to grant stay is required to take the relevant facts into consideration and pass a reasoned order, if not a detailed one while disposing of the stay petitions. we find it difficult to approve the routine and mechanical orders that are being invariably passed by the first appellate authority as is evident from the order dated april 29, 2004.2. the petitioner having left with no other option moved the revisional authority against the order dated april 29, 2004 and the revisional authority also dismissed the stay petition filed by the petitioner herein on the ground that 'the assessment order discloses that there is an excess tax of rs. 5,607 against, which form 'c' appears to have been issued.' the revisional authority obviously misdirected itself to the question that was required to be considered and accordingly, disposed of the stay petition as if no coercive steps were being taken against the petitioner for realisation of any tax. the revisional authority failed to take into consideration the fact that the assessing authority revised the assessment order vide proceedings dated february 19, 2004 and found the balance of rs. 49,855 liable to be paid by the petitioner. this is the subject-matter of the appeal before the appellate authority. the petitioner wanted stay of collection of this amount during the pendency of the appeal. neither the appellate authority nor the revisional authority adverted to these aspects of the matter.3. in the circumstances, both the orders referred to herein above are set aside. the appellate authority is now directed to pass appropriate order on the stay petition filed by the petitioner bearing in mind.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

B. Sudershan Reddy, J.

1. The first appellate authority vide its order dated April 29, 2004 rejected the stay petition filed by the petitioner herein in a printed pro forma. In our considered opinion, this practice of disposal of the stay petitions by the appellate authorities in printed pro formas is not proper since they do not reflect any application of mind by the appellate authorities to the facts in each case. The appellate authority while exercising its power to grant or refuse to grant stay is required to take the relevant facts into consideration and pass a reasoned order, if not a detailed one while disposing of the stay petitions. We find it difficult to approve the routine and mechanical orders that are being invariably passed by the first appellate authority as is evident from the order dated April 29, 2004.

2. The petitioner having left with no other option moved the revisional authority against the order dated April 29, 2004 and the revisional authority also dismissed the stay petition filed by the petitioner herein on the ground that 'the assessment order discloses that there is an excess tax of Rs. 5,607 against, which form 'C' appears to have been issued.' The revisional authority obviously misdirected itself to the question that was required to be considered and accordingly, disposed of the stay petition as if no coercive steps were being taken against the petitioner for realisation of any tax. The revisional authority failed to take into consideration the fact that the assessing authority revised the assessment order vide proceedings dated February 19, 2004 and found the balance of Rs. 49,855 liable to be paid by the petitioner. This is the subject-matter of the appeal before the appellate authority. The petitioner wanted stay of collection of this amount during the pendency of the appeal. Neither the appellate authority nor the revisional authority adverted to these aspects of the matter.

3. In the circumstances, both the orders referred to herein above are set aside. The appellate authority is now directed to pass appropriate order on the stay petition filed by the petitioner bearing in mind the observations made in this order. The petitioner shall appear before the appellate authority on December 6, 2004 along with a copy of this order and the appellate authority shall immediately take up the application for hearing of the stay petition and pass appropriate orders within three days thereafter.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 2004 Same Parties Jayalakshmi Agencies vs Additional Commissioner of Commercial... Same Subject Sales Tax/VAT Same Judge B. Sudershan Reddy and ;T. Ch. Surya Rao, JJ.

Sales Tax/VAT