The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pieased to tssue a ,vrjt orcier or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of l,'la;rdamus declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondent dt. 2B-10-2005 as ilie!al atb!'trary, dtscr'rrnrnatory and consequently direct the respondents to ccnsrder the clarm o{ the petttioner for Sales Tax Credit and Consider the same in accordance with the provisions of AP VAT Act and Rules. 2005 or any other order oi- orilers as the Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case or else the petitioner herein will be put to great hardship and suffer irrepa ra ble loss. l.A. NO: 1OF 2006(WPMP. NO:1 5384 oF 2006) Petition unde. section 151 CPC praying that in the circrumstances stated in the affidavit filed in r;upport of the petition, the High court ma) oe pleased to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for'Saies Tax Credit' and consider the same in accordance with the provisions of AP \'AT Act and Rules, 2005 or any other o-der or orders as the Hon'ble court may d :em frt and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice o elsl?rhe petitioner herein will be put to great hardship and suffer irreparable loss. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. KARTHIK RAMANA' REPIIESENTING SRI S DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondents: SRI T. CHAITANYA KIRAN' AGP REPRESENTING SPECIAL GP FOR THE STATE TAX The Gourt made thr: following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRJ JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATIII RAO W.P.No.1 2381 0F 2006 Q,BDEB, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. P.Karthik Ramana, leamed counsel representing N'{r. S.Dwarakanath, leamed counsel for the petitioner and .l'.Chaitanya Kiran, leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader N{r. representittg the learned Special Covernment Pleader fbr the State .l ax firr the respondents. Perused the record' l. I'he irtstant is the writ petition which has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 28 102005 passed by the then Commercial Tax Department, Govemment of Andhra Pradesh, whereby the claim ofthe petitioner for sales tax credit was not extended beyond the prescribed period of limitation under the provisions of the Andfua Pradesh VAT Act and Rules' 2005'

3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court in W'P'No'18488 of 2005 decided on 2c).08.2005 has been brought to tlle notice of this Coun' 2 We find tha- tlre judgrnent rendered by the Divisi<,, lench in thc said case of PCH Business vs. The Principal Secrelarry, Revenue Departmenl (CT), Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.,l to have been decided the said issue under almost:irnilar factual background. The Division Bench in the said case fr('nl paragraphs 2 to 5 has held as under: "2. The impugned order dated July 28, 2005 cl the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad, re ecting the representation of the petitroner dated July 21 . 2) .)5 la extend the time for submitting ciaim for sales tax credrt is perfectiy in conformity with Rule 37(2)(h) of the rrrdhra Pradesir Value Added Tax Rules 2005. which re;( i as follows 'h) a claim for sales tax credrl shall be subnri t rd to :he authority prescribed within ten days from il-3 date rf commencement of the Act The :),rputy lommrssioner may, having regard to the ;ircumstances permit the VAT dealer to ma[:r, the ,:la m after the said ten days but not later thar ihrrtv rjays from the date of commencement of the A( t The approval of the claim for sales tax credtt sl"a I be issued on form VAT 116 not later than ninet\ lays lrom the date of commencement of the Act; -fhat a plain reading of the rule suggests thl: the 3. Deputy Commissioner may exercise discretion and )ermit '120061 144 S'rC 104 (AP) r ./ 3 the VAT dealer to make the claim after the expiry of ten days of the prescribed t me but not later than thirty days from the date of commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 lt rs not as if the Deputy Commissioner is clothed wrth any authority to keep on extendlng the time The mandate enshrined in Rule 37(2)(h) of the Rules referred to herernabove ts absolutely clear' The rule is not susceptible to any interpretation as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, placed some orders before us wherein the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Charminar Division, appears to have extended time for filing form VAT 115 up to May 20' 2OO5 which may as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner runs contrary to the rules but the same cannot be taken as a precedent and we cannot compel the competent authorities to act contrary to law. No writ of mandamus lies compelling the competent authority to act contrary to law' 5. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to grant any order whatsoever to the petitioner in this writ petition lt is entirely a different matter if those proceedings that are presented before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner are rmpugned. The said orders upon which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the Petltloner are not impugned before us ln any one of the wrrt petitions ,+, ln vicw ol the afbresaid .iudicial pronouncement by the Division Bench of this High Court itself, we are of the considered opinion that the question raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition stands squarely covered by the said judgment' 4

5. In view of the same, the present writ petition also meets the same fate and is accordingly dismissed in similar terms. Ihere shall be no order as to costs Conscq'-rently, rniscellaneous petitions pending. I lnr. shrll stand closed SD/- GOWRI SHANKAR JTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' {SECTION OFFICER To, TJ TK Telangana, at HYderabad[OUT]

1. One CC to Sri S. Dwarakanath, Advocate [OPUC] i: iil CC io rne Special GP for State Tax, High Court for th3 State of 3. Two CD CoPies a HIGH COURT DATED:1810812A25 ORDER WP.No.12381 of 2006 /a _ _::_.- o :) 19 iCT 201 ;:1 L Dr i [C!\'- }. ,-/ \ >,72' DTSMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT GOSTS &s