Director Mr.Sourabh Agarwal v. Abids Division, Hyderabad & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Set aside
orders are set aside, and the writ petitions stand disposed of without
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
M/s.Bengal Cold Rollers (P) Limited, 5-9-30/13 to 15, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, represented by its Director Mr.Sourabh Agarwal .. Petitioner
And The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Abids Division, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.14425 AND 14455 OF 2011
COMMON ORDER:
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The orders of the second respondent in W.P.Nos.14425 and 14455 of 2011 dated 07.05.2011 and 20.04.2011 levying penalty and tax respectively under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (the Act, for brevity), are under challenge in these writ petitions. The petitioner also questions the jurisdiction of the assessing authority in assessing the petitioner to tax and penalty on the ground that he is not the jurisdictional assessing officer, and he has not been authorized by the Deputy Commissioner to assess the petitioner to tax and penalty. This Bench in Balaji Flour Mills v. the Commercial Tax Officer-II, Chittoor, Chittoor District[1] has considered the validity of the self same rule, as well as the question whether the authorization for audit given by the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 59(1)(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (the Rules) read with Section 43 of the Act enables the Audit Officer to also undertake assessment for the relevant period.
The question was answered in the negative. The conclusions in the judgment dated 30.12.2010 are as follows. (a) In the result, in the analysis and for the reasons as above, we reject the relief to declare Rule 59(1)(4)(ii)(b) and (d) of the VAT Rules as ultra vires. We also declare that sub- sections (3) and (4) of Section 17 do not suffer from any constitutional infirmity and are valid. We also reject all other prayers for declaring the impugned rule and impugned assessment orders as ultra vires or invalid except to the extent indicated in (b) and (c) below; (b) In view of our holding that the authorisation to audit under Section 43 read with Rule 59(1)(7) by itself does not enable audit officer to undertake assessment, we set aside all the assessment orders and consequential orders, if any under Section 53 of the VAT Act, in all the writ petitions; (c) All the impugned assessment orders shall stand remitted to the respective audit officers who shall submit audit reports as contemplated under Chapter VII of the VAT Audit Manual for appropriate Post Audit Action.
Operative part
If the competent like Deputy controlling and/or Commissioner authorizing assessment, it shall be open to such authorizing officer or authority prescribed, as the case may be, to undertake assessment in accordance with law. supervising authority separate issues orders Following the same, the impugned assessment and penalty orders are set aside, and the writ petitions stand disposed of without any order as to costs. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) ____________________________
07.06.2011 KH [1] (2011) VST 40 150 (A.P.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: orders are set aside, and the writ petitions stand disposed of without
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 07 Jun 2011. The bench was V V S RAO, 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.