STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS ETC

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 11735-11740 of 2016, Judgment Date: Dec 01, 2016

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).11735-11740 OF 2016
                      (@SLP(C) NO(S).1125-1130 OF 2016)



STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH                              APPELLANT

                                VERSUS

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX AND ORS ETC                                    RESPONDENTS

                                WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11741 OF 2016
(@SLP(C) NO.1994 OF 2016)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).11742-11743 OF 2016
(@SLP(C) NO(S).2142-2143 OF 2016)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).11744-11745 OF 2016
(@SLP(C) NO(S).2124-2125 OF 2016)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).11747-11762 OF 2016
(@SLP(C) NO(S).2817-2832 OF 2016)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).11763-11764 OF 2016
(@SLP(C) NO(S).4817-4818 OF 2016)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11765 OF 2016
(@SLP(C) NO.2206 OF 2016)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).11766-11767 OF 2016
(@SLP(C) NO(S).4799-4800 OF 2016)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11768 OF 2016
(@SLP(C) NO.6871 OF 2016)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).11769-11771 OF 2016
(@SLP(C) NO(S).8461-8463 OF 2016)



                        J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

      Leave granted.
      The appellants are before this Court aggrieved by  the  interim  order
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh for  the  State  of
Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh dated 16.12.2015 in WVMP  Nos.1688
& 2546 of 2015 and connected matters. The operative  portion  of  the  order
reads as follows :
      “The petitioners herein and the  Government  of  A.P  shall  forthwith
and, in any event, on or before 20.01.2016, re-deposit the amounts  received
by them from APBCL on the sale of the stocks (beer, FL  and  IMFL)  attached
by the Income-tax department. Such re-deposit would ensure that  the  entire
sale proceeds (ie Rs.489.07 crores les the TDS of Rs.4.81 crores) remain  in
the separate account directed to be maintained by this Court. The  interests
of the petitioners, the Income Tax Department, and the Government of  Andhra
Pradesh would be secured thereby as, after the Writ  Petitions  are  finally
heard and decided, these amounts can be paid to those entitled thereto.”

       When  the  matter  came  up  before  this  Court,  vide  order  dated
01.02.2016, it was ordered that as far as the amount of  Rs.  489.07  crores
liability of tax is concerned, there shall be no  coercive  steps  till  the
next date of hearing.
       Having heard  Mr.  P.  Chidambaram,  Mr.  Pallav  Shishodia,  learned
Senior Counsel for the appellant(s) and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned  Solicitor
General, Mr. Basava Prabhu  S.  Patil,  learned  Senior  Counsel  and  other
learned counsel appearing for the respondents, we are of the  view  that  it
is not necessary for this Court, at this  stage,  to  go  into  the  various
disputed contentions  raised  by  the  parties  on  merits  since  the  Writ
Petitions are pending before the High Court. We find that the deposit is  to
be made mainly by the State of Andhra Pradesh.
      Therefore, we dispose of these appeals with  a  request  to  the  High
Court to dispose of the Writ Petitions expeditiously and  preferably  before
ensuing summer vacation.
      In case the  Writ  Petitions  are  dismissed,  the  appellants  shall,
subject to the orders passed by the High Court and subject to  those  orders
attaining finality, deposit the amounts as ordered by the High Court  within
a period of one month, with interest as fixed by the High Court.
      Since the High Court has passed only an  interim  order,  we  make  it
clear that all contentions are left open and the  Writ  Petitions  shall  be
disposed of uninfluenced by any of the  observations  and  findings  in  the
interim order.
      Till the Writ petitions are disposed  of  by  the  High  Court,  there
should be no recovery of the dues in terms of the impugned order.


                                               ...........................J.
                                                       (KURIAN JOSEPH)

                                                ..........................J.
                                                         (AMITAVA ROY)
NEW DELHI,
DECEMBER 01, 2016