The High Court did not have the power to grant a stay of collection of disputed tax and penalty pending the disposal of a revision petition presented to it under Section 22 of the APGST Act.

VENKATARAMA REDDI, J.

( 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:"provided further, that if, as a result of the petition, any change becomes necessary in such assessment, the Highcourt may authorise the assessing authority to amend the assessment, and on such amendment being made, the excess amount paid by the dealer shall be refunded to him without interest, or the further amount of tax due from him shall be collected in accordance with the provisions of this Act, as the case may be". Then comes sub-section (6-A) which was introduced by APGST Amendment act (Act 18 of 1985 ). The said sub-section lays down:"the pay men t of tax and penalty, if any due in accordance with the order of the Appellate Tribunal in respect of which a petition has been preferred" under sub-section (1) shall not be stayed pending the disposal of the petition, but if such amount is reduced as a result of such petition, the excess tax paid shall be refunded in accordance with the provisions of sec. 33-B. "

( 4 ) BEFORE the introduction of sub-section (6-A) in the year 1985, the issuewhether under sub-sec. (6), the High Court had power to grant stay of collection of tax or whether the power vested in the High Court under sub-sec. (6) was much narrower in scope, did not crop up for consideration at anytime before this Court. It was perhaps taken for granted that the power to grant stay inhered in the High Court under that provision. The controversy came to surface only after the advent of sub-sec. (6-A ). The first of the cases in which sub-sections (6) and (6-A) were considered was Bharath Litho Press (1 supra ). The Division bench observed:"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 s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document