✦ Andhra Pradesh High Court · 07 Aug 2009

M/s Neelima Constructions, West Maredpally, Secunderabad v. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance[1] and S. Lalaiah & Co & Anr.

Writ Petition No. 15859 of 2009GODA RAGHURAM, RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Case at a glance

Outcome

Allowed

In the light of the principle declared, the writ petition is allowed

Provisions considered

Judgment

Cause title

M/s Neelima Constructions, West Maredpally, Secunderabad, Rep. By its Managing partner, Sri M.Srinivas Goud. The Commercial Tax Officer, Maredpally Circle, Secunderabad. …Petitioner

Respondent

ORAL ORDER:

Operative part

(Per GR, J) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for the respondents. In this writ petition directed against the order of assessment dated 30-1-2009 under the AP VAT Act, 2005, in respect of the assessment year 2006-07, the grievance is that the order of assessment has been passed without according personal hearing to the assessee, though he had requested for such personal hearing. There is no dispute on this aspect. In view of the judgments of this Court in Tirumala Milk Products Ltd., Kadiveda v. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance and another[1] and S. Lalaiah & Co. v. The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Saroornagar Division, Nampally, Hyderabad and another[2] when a request is made for personal hearing, the authorities are required to afford personal hearing to the assessee. In the light of the principle declared, the writ petition is allowed. The order of assessment passed by the respondents dated 30-1-2009 is set aside and the matter remanded to the respondents for a de novo assessment after according an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. No costs. 7th August, 2009 _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J __________________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J [1] 41 (2005) APSTJ 6 [2] 45 (2007) APSTJ 116

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: In the light of the principle declared, the writ petition is allowed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

AP VAT Act, 2005.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 07 Aug 2009. The bench was GODA RAGHURAM, RAMESH RANGANATHAN.

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Andhra Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 15859 of 2009). ← Search more judgments