I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE Sm DAY OE NOVEMBERA2OT1OAI
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASI-IOK' B.1A'HI1V*.£::~R'OER1 ' " A
WRIT PETITION NOS4629 1OE.I2O:1
WRIT PETITION NOS.._3--4;769#8__1 8._[ 20
BETWEEN
M/S ARMSTRONG WORLD 1RD1_JSTR1ESjI_ _
INDIA PVT. LTD. H " j'
58/2, OERSINOASANDRA VILLAGEf»._ _
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,' BEOU:R~HOELI----."- 'V
BANGALORE' A 'V .
REPRESENTED,-BY SHRI GNEFJEATESH
AUTRORISVEDVSIORATORER SENIOR
AREA SALES AMANA(;ER.'~»._" _ PETITIONER
' (EYES ADV.,]
* 1. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES
, . I 'ENFORCEMENT 5, SOUTH ZONE
- DBANGALQRF...
2. ' . JOI_N'7i' COMMISSIONER OE COMMERCIAL TAXES
'~{AP1?E.A,I,S--2), ABHAYA COMPLEX
GROUND FLOOR, RISILDAR ROAD
I I SESHADRIPURAM
'"'B'ANGALORE»56O 020 RESPONDENTS
(BY:SRI H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD, HCGP)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE
I 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO RESPONDENT NO.l
NOT TO ENCASH THE BANK QUARANTEE EXECUTED BY
2
THE PETITIONER DURING THE PENDENCY OF'
APPEALS BEFORE FiRST APPELLATE AUTHORITE5.
ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FoR.prai:L1M'11\'iARY9--.'i_'
HEARING THIS DAY, 'I'HE COURT MADE THE Foiiiowtm: "
ORDER
Sri H.T.Narendra Prasad’;-~.Vthetlearraed’
Pleader is directed to take »~f;o1’*Vthe
2. The petitioners. that during the
pendency of VAT. Appeeiar: ifitosjjta1xiAéTs{i:T1’795/2009-2010
and K.s.T,:. the disputed
amounts–are’~s’o1i’ght reteovered from the petitioner
forciblgzip ” 0 V 0 it
3. ._petitioner has challenged the
-“2T__rea,_s’sessrnent or’de_r___.passed under Section 39(1) of the
Added Tax Act, 2003 and the
asAse’ssmer1’t’j__oi’ escaped turnover under Section 12~«A of
‘r__the Sales Tax Act. 1957 by way of the said
“:0app’e’a31s before the second respondent Joint
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appea1s–2). The
petitioner has already deposited 50% of the disputed
flgfiif.
3
tax, penalty and interest. Subject to the
executing the bank guarantee in respeet V’ M
remaining amount, the Appe1late”A’u’thority_;
interim order of stay on Vl2~l~’:’2′.Qt1fl,}A.’
However, these appeals have and
the first respondent is ._e0eroiVe”recovery
of amounts, is the petitioner.
4. On nea1:§ng««gp:§ie R. Harish for
the Prasad for the
of this Court the
ends by passing the following
order; – –.
” .33′ second respondent is directed to dispose
Voi7::V’\:?’–.;§g5l.V’V]7.;-inppeal Nos. 1 128~l 175/09 10 and
Appeal Nos.85–86/09-l0 as
.. eiipeditiously as possible.
b) The petitioner shall keep validating the bank
guarantee from time to time during the
pendenoy of the said appeals.
93%.
4
c) The effect of the interim order of stay granted’;
by the second respondent shali
accrued to the petitior1__er.. ,__ciur_—irig””*
pendeney of the said appeais,
petitioner comp1ying”t__§nth Adireet:or;’AA”~1._;(b}
hereinabove.
5. These petitions 2{cc§:«-d»::;g1yeisposed of. No
order as to K ‘ _ * _ ‘
Tfi’c1§’e