Signatory Mr. S. Naresh Babu v. Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of directing the
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- AP Vat Act s. 67
- AP VAT Act, 2005 s. 31(1)
Judgment
Cause title
M/s. Krishidhan Seeds Limited, D.No.7-97-439-58, Near FCI Godown, Bellary Road, Kurnool - 518 003, Rep. by its Senior Executive Accounts and Authorized Signatory Mr. S. Naresh Babu. ..... PETITIONER
AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (Int.), Large Turnover Unit Circle, Behind Central Plaza, Near Ayyappa Swamy Temple, Kurnool - 518 002. 2 The Commercial Tax Officer No.1, Kurnool. 3 Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kurnool Division, Kurnool. 4 Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 5 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. byi ts Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction declaring (a) the action of the 1st respondent in levying tax on seeds for sowing purpose, by the proceedings, dated 19- 04-2008, which is contrary to the amended entry 44 of the I Schedule of the A.P.V.A.T. Act, vide G.O.Ms.No.818, dated 30-6-2008 which was amended with retrospective effect from 1-4-2005, as arbitrary, contrary to law and in violation of principles of natural justice and rule of law and consequently set aside the same, (b) clause (iii) of Sub Section 4 of Section 67 of the AP Vat Act as illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires since it amounts to taking away the power of the quasi judicial authorities under the Act in view of the binding nature of the orders of the Advance Ruling authority on all the officers of the department except the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and there by affecting the rights of the Petitioner, (c) in the alternative declare the action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting to entrain the appeal without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner including personal hearing as arbitrary, unjustified and consequently set aside the order of the 3rd respondent dated 26-8-2008. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.No.207 of 2009
ORDER:
(per VEJ) As against the orders passed by the first respondent – the Assistant Commissioner (CT)(Int.), LTUC, Kurnool, demanding the petitioner to pay the tax of Rs.4,04,213/-, the petitioner filed an appeal before the third respondent – Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kurnool Division, Kurnool along with an application for stay. The said appeal has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not paid
Operative part
12.5% tax, which is prerequisite for admission of the appeal under Section 31(1) of the AP VAT Act, 2005. It is stated that the petitioner is now willing to pay 12.5% tax. In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to deposit 12.5% tax within a period of three weeks from today. On such deposit, the third respondent shall consider the appeal filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. D.S.R.VARMA, J V.ESWARAIAH, J Date: 07.01.2009
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of directing the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; AP Vat Act — s. 67; AP VAT Act, 2005 — s. 31(1).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 07 Jan 2009. The bench was D S R VARMA, V ESWARAIAH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.