M/s Sudalagunta Sugars Lmt., C.K.Palle Road, Chittoor v. Revenue(CT) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
Outcome
Remanded
the matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent who
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Between: M/s Sudalagunta Sugars Lmt., C.K.Palle Road, Chittoor, rep by its Managing Director, Mr..S.Jayaram Choudary, ..... PET IT IONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer-I, Tirupati-I Circle, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 2 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Secretary Revenue(CT) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT (S)
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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in passing the impugned assessment order levying tax on the turnover of sugar cane seedlings through impugned order dated 28.02.2008 though there is no sale of sugar cane seedlings in the hands of the petitioner and also in the light of the GOs issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.562 Revenue dated 21.04.1982 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.719 Revenue dated 19.11.2001 exempting sale of seedlings as illegal, arbitrary, high handed, without authority of aw and jurisdiction and also barred by time and set aside the same and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL T AX T he Court made t he following : THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NO. 8431 OF 2008
ORDER:
Operative part
(Per Smt. T. Meena Kumari, J) The present writ petition has been filed challenging the assessment order dated 28.2.2008 passed by the 1st respondent levying tax on the turnover of sugar cane seedlings. The petitioner is a limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act and carrying on business in manufacture and sale of sugar and its bye products. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of A.P. General Sales Tax, 1957, AP VAT Act, 2005 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and is an assessee on the rolls of the 1st respondent. The petitioner was assessed to tax for the year 2004-05 and the 1st respondent levied tax on the turnover of sugar cane seedlings though the 2nd respondent exempted tax on the sale of seedlings by GO Ms.No. 562, Revenue, dated 21.4.1982 as amended by GO Ms. No. 719, Revenue, dated 19.11.2001. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the GO Ms.No. 719, Revenue, dated 19.11.2001 can be applied to the case of the petitioner for the assessment year 2004-05. Accordingly the matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent who shall pass fresh order in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner, on or before 30 th September,
2008. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J _________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Dt.28.7.2008 NB: CC of order be furnished in one week. /BO/ KR // TRUE COPY // ..... REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Commercial Tax Officer-I, Tirupati-I Circle, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 2 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Secretary Revenue(CT) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 3. 2 CCs to GP for Commercial Tax 4. 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: the matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent who
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Companies Act, 2013; Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 19 Nov 2001. The bench was T MEENA KUMARI, RAMESH.
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.