Allowed

M/s. Apple Granites Limited (CIN-U1801MHI994PLC076649), v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Dec 2020WP/1027/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition challenging an entry tax assessment. The Court held that the assessing authority failed to address the petitioner's contention regarding limitation under Section 8(5) of the Act. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 31.07.2019 was set aside and the matter remanded to the Commercial Tax Officer for consideration of the limitation issue and passing fresh orders.

M/s. Apple Granites Limited… — GST and Indirect Tax | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY

¶3

WRIT PETITION No. 1027 OF 2020

¶4

ORDER: ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai )

¶5

Heard Sri K.Adi Siva Vara Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.C.D.Sekhar, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax for respondents.

¶6

In the present Writ Petition, challenge is to the proceedings of the 1^st respondent dated 31.07.2019. The issue in the present Writ Petition arises under the Andhra Pradesh Entry on Tax of Motor Vehicle into Local Areas Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act’).

¶7

According to the petitioner, the petitioner herein purchased imported Caterpillar 770G Tyre mounted off highway truck (Caterpillar 770G Rear Dumper) in the month of April, 2014. After issuing show cause notices and revised show cause notices and calling for objections, the assessing authority, vide Assessment No.164444 (Entry Tax)/2014-15 dated 31.07.2019, assessed the amount payable as Rs.18,04,380/- towards the tax.

¶8

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order of assessment is highly erroneous and contrary to law and the provisions of Section 8 of the Act. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that in view of the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the Act, the

¶9

¶10

assessing authority grossly erred in passing the order of assessment after expiry of three years of limitation.

¶11

On the other hand, strenuously opposing the Writ Petition, it is contended by Sri T.C.D.Sekhar, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax that only after elaborately and extensively considering the objections, the assessing authority passed the impugned order dated 31.07.2019.

¶12

The information available before this Court manifestly discloses that in response to the revised show cause notice dated 18.06.2019, the petitioner herein submitted its objections on 15.07.2019. The said objections read as under:

¶13

"1. The proposed entry tax on OFF HIGH WAY TRUCK purchased from M/s. CATTERPILLAR India Pvt. Ltd., Tiruvallur vide Inv. No.880025212 Dt.22.04.2014 for Value of Rs.1,24,44,000/-. In this context it is submitted that the truck are built for the grades and long haul associated with quarries, Mines and Heavy construction sector. The said truck is operated in the quarries/mines and it is not moved on roads for transportation of goods and no requirement of registration U/s.2(28) of the Motor Vehicle Act, to attract levy of entry Tax U/Sec. 3 & 4 of The A.P.M.V.Act 1996.

¶14

At this juncture it is important to read the term “motor vehicle” or “vehicle” for the purpose of Act, 1988 has been defined under Section 2(28) therein and read as under:

¶15

¶16

“(28) “motor vehicle” or “vehicle” means any mechanically propelled which adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding twenty five cubic centimeters.”

¶17

On perusal of the above statutory provisions it is cleared that the OFF HIGH WAY TRUCK is not for use upon Roads.

¶18

(A) It was a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in Quarry/mines.

¶19

(B) It was not registered under the Motor Vehicle Act.

¶20

¶21

(D) To attract levy of entry Tax U/Sec. 3 & 4 of The A.P.M.V. Act 1996.

¶22

It is brought to your kind notice that the OFF HIGH WAY TRUCK is out of the purview the G.O.Ms.No.159 Revenue (CT-II) Dept dt.12.03.2012 issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of The A.P.M.V. Act, 1996.

¶23

The proposed notice is barred by limitation of time as the Sec.8(5) of the Act authorized the authorities to pass the orders

¶24

¶25

within three years from the last date prescribed for filing of returns to that period. The said transaction was taken place in the month of April 2014 the orders has to be passed on or before April 2017.

¶26

If the authorities are still wish to proceed against us an opportunity of personal hearing may be granted in the interest of justice and equity."

¶27

In fact, the assessing authority also referred to the said objections in the impugned orders at page Nos.6 and 7. A perusal of the order under challenge discloses that the assessing authority did not record any conclusion on the contention raised, touching the limitation aspect under Section 8(5) of the Act. According to sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the Act, no order of assessment under sub-section (3) or subsection (4) or any period shall be made after expiry of three years from the last date prescribed for filing of returns for that period. As observed supra, though the petitioner herein specifically raised an objection, saying that the proposed levy stood barred by limitation under Section 8(5) of the Act, the assessing authority did not make any endeavour to record any answer on the said contention, which, obviously, goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to remand the matter to the assessing authority for consideration of the issue and for passing orders afresh.

¶28

For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 31.07.2019

¶29

¶30

vide Assessment No.164444/(Entry Tax)/2014-15 and the matter is remanded to the Commercial Tax Officer-respondent No.1 herein for consideration of the issue and for passing orders afresh in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶31

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this case, shall stand closed.

¶32

____________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶33

_________________________ K.SURESH REDDY, J Date: 02.12.2020 siva

¶34

¶35

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI AND

¶36

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

¶37

WRIT PETITION No. 1027 OF 2020

¶38

Date: 02.12.2020

¶39

siva

M/s. Apple Granites Limited (CIN-U1801MHI994PLC076649), v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Apple Granites Limited (CIN-U1801MHI994PLC076649), v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Svenkateswara Cold Storage Vs the Union of India Formerly Andhra Bank, Rep by Its Branch Manger

M/s. Srinivasa Traders, Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

M/s. Sri Varalakshmi Rice Mill, Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

M/s. Sri Sitaramanjaneya Rice Mill, Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

M/s. Sri Shiridi Sai Rama Traders, Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

M/s. Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Traders, Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)