M/s.Krishnnaiah Motors Pvt. Limited, A.1, Moti Valley, Thirrumalgerry, Secunderabad v. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) VM-I, Begumpet Division, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Hence the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 19(1)(g), 226
- A.P. VAT Act, 2005
- A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 s. 31
Judgment
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 issue a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ to quash the order of assessment passed by the first respondent dated 25.04.2008 under the A.P. VAT Act, 2005 for the period April, 2007 the same as arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India apart from being in violation of principles of natural justice and to issue a consequential direction to the first respondent to act in accordance with law. to January, 2008 by declaring Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VEDULA SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: SPL. G.P. FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES The Court made the following: Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) The petitioner is a dealer in motor vehicles and is assessed to sales tax.
The first respondent passed an order dated 25-04-2008 holding that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.21,71,336/- towards commercial tax. The petitioner assailed the same in this writ petition by urging several grounds. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the assessing authority did not take into account, the various relevant facts mentioned in the explanation, particularly the monthly returns. He further contends that several items, which have already suffered tax, are assessed for the second time. Learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, on the other hand, submits that the writ petition is not maintainable since the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy of appeal under Section 31 of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005. It is only in exceptional cases, that writ petitions can be entertained against the orders of assessment, bypassing the remedy of appeal.
Operative part
It is not even complained that the first respondent is not vested with the power to pass the impugned order or that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. Therefore, we are of the opinion that this is not a case for entertaining a writ petition against the order of assessment. The petitioner can avail the remedy of appeal. Its interests can be protected by directing that till the competent authority disposes of the application for stay coercive steps shall not be taken for recovery of the tax due. Hence the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal and file an application for grant of stay. Till the competent authority disposes of the application for stay, coercive steps shall not be taken against the petitioner for recovery of the balance of the tax. The appeal shall be treated as having been presented within the period of limitation, in case it is filed within two weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J _________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:28.05.2008 Usd/tsy To
The Assistant Commissioner (CT) VM-I, Begumpet Division, Hyderabad.
The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Commercial Taxes Bhavan, Exhibition Grounds Road, Hdyerabad.
Two CCs to the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes.
Two CD copies.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 19(1)(g), 226; A.P. VAT Act, 2005; A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 — s. 31.
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.