Disposed

M/S. Skr Enterprises v. State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Nov 2024WP/5827/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order dispenses with costs and disposes of two writ petitions filed by S.K.R Enterprises challenging an assessment order and a penalty order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer concerning tax demands under the AP VAT Act, noting doubts regarding the service of the impugned orders.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of both writ petitions with liberty to approach the appellate authority within 30 days from the date of this order.

M/S. Skr Enterprises Vs State of Ap — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY. THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶9

WRIT PETITION NOs: 5827 & 5828 OF 2018

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO: 5827 OF 201S

¶11

Between:

¶12

M/S. SKR ENTERPRISES, D.No.4/1/12/4, Ground Floor, Nehru Nagar, 3rd Line, Krishnalanka, Vijayjawada. Rep.by its Managing Partner, Mr.Seelam Govinda Reddy, ...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Andhra Pradesh. Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT-II) Dept, A.P. Secretariat. Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, AP.

¶15

Commercial Tax Officer., Krishnalanka Circle. Vijayawada.

¶16

Deputy Commercial Tax-Officer, Krish-nalanka Circle, Vijayawada.

¶17

Deputy Commercial Tax Offii^ ^11, Bhavanipuram Circle, No-I Division Vijayawada. Krishna District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in' / the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring that the action of the 2nd respondent in passing penalty order dt. 1-1-05-2016 in A.O.NO. 20702 is high handed, arbitrary, illegal, against the provisions of AP VAT Act and also against the principles of natural justice, and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the penalty dt.11-05-2016 passed by the 2nd respondent for the period from 8/2015 to 1/2016 the disposal of the above Writ petition and pass such other order or order as deems fit and proper in the circumstances of and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶22

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the counter copies on record by allowing the leave petition in the above writ petition.

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 to release the attached properties bearing plot No. 48 in Survey No. 616/5, House No. 6-146B, Nunna,

¶26

¶27

Vijayawada Rural, to an extent of 194.6 Sq.Yds and^{PlotNo.17inSurvey} No. 620/1, 620/2A, 621/1 to 621/3 house No. 6-20, Nunna/Vijayawa^da Rural to an extent of 271.95 Sq.Yds in view of attachment^oftheother property which is sufficient for the earners of Tax^andpenalty.

¶28

¶29

WRIT PFTITION NO: 5828 OF 2018

¶30

Between:

¶31

M/S. S K R Enterprises, D.No.41/1/12/4, Ground Floor, Nehru Nagar, 3rd Line, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada. Rep.by its Managing Partner, Mr.Seelam Govinda Reddy,

¶32

...PETITIONER

¶33

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT-II) Dept, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,^{GuntufiDistrict,} AP

¶34

Commercial Tax Officer,, Krishnalanka Circle, Vijayawada.

¶35

Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,, Krishnalanka Circle,^Vijayawada.

¶36

Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-II., Bhavanipuram^{Circle,No-IDivision,} Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶37

...RESPONDENTS

¶38

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other^{appropriatewritor} order or direction declaring that the action of the^{2ndrespondentinpassing} assessment order dt. 02-04-2016 in A.O.NO. 17441 is high handed.

¶39

arbitrary, illegal, against the provisions of AP VAT Act and also against the principles of natural justice, and consequently set^{asidethesame.} lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶40

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supfD''oft of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the responderit No. 2 to release the attached properties bearing plot No. 48 in Survey No. 616/5, House No. 6-146B, Nunna, Vijayawada Rural, to an extent of 194.6 Sq.Yds and Plot No. 17 in Survey No. 620/1, 620/2A, 621/1 to 621/3 house No. 6-20, Nunna, Vijayawada Rural to an extent of 271.95 Sq.Yds in view of attachment of the other property which is sufficient for the earners of Tax and penalty.

¶41

iA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶42

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the counter copies on record by allowing the leave petition in the above writ petition.

¶43

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶44

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order dt.02-04-2016 passed by the 2nd respondent for the period from 8/2015 to 1/2016 till the disposal of the above Writ petition and pass such other order or orders as deems-fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, otherwise, the petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship.

¶45

Counsel for the Petitioner for above two Cases: SRI V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY

APHC010133072018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AIVIARAVATI

¶50

[3508]

¶51

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶52

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFOUR

¶53

PRESENT

¶54

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶55

WRIT PETITION NOs: 5827 & 5828 of 2018

¶56

Between:

¶57

M/s. S.K.R Enterprises

¶58

...PETITIONER

¶59

AND

¶60

State Of A.P and Others

¶61

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶62

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶63

1.V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY

¶64

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶65

1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX (AP)

¶66

2.S SURI BABU

¶67

The Court made the following common order:

¶68

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunanadan Rao)

¶69

The petitioner was registered under the AP VAT Act, 2005^{withthe2""^} respondent and was conducting business in purchase^and sale of waste p^er. The respondent had passed assessment proceedings^raisingatax demand of Rs.40,45,874/-. The assessment order also stated that the ITC of

¶70

¶71

¶72

Counsel for the Respondents for above two Cases: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX (AP)

¶73

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: S SURI BABU

¶74

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶75

¶76

like amount, which had been claimed by the petitioner, was being disallowed on the ground that the transactions, under which the ITC was being claimed, were fake transactions.

¶77

After the said order had been passed, the 4**^ respondent^issaid to have issued a notice under the Revenue Recovery Act on the petitioner, on 24.01.2018, calling upon the petitioner to pay tax of Rs.40,45,874/- and penalty of Rs.80,91,748/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶78

The demand for penalty of Rs.80,91,748/- was raised on the basis of a penalty order passed on 11.05.2016.

¶79

The petitioner has now approached this Court challenging^the assessment order as well as the penalty order and the subsequent recovery proceedings. The petitioner contends that three of his immovable properties have been attached by the authorities under the Revenue Recovery Act, for recovery of the aforesaid amounts and that steps were being taken for auctioning the properties for recovery of taxes and penalty.

¶80

The petitioner contends that after receipt of the notice under the Revenue Recovery Act, he had approached the 1®* respondent for copies of the orders which were refused. The petitioner contends that he was able to obtain these orders from the website of the department subsequently.

¶81

¶82

It is the case of the petitioner that he was depressed on account of business losses and was unable to reply to any of the notices and communications sent by the 1®‘ respondent. He would further submit that neither the assessment order nor penalty order was served on him to enable him to take steps for filing an appeal. He would further submit that the 1®* respondent taking advantage of the absence of any objections, had levied huge amounts even though the same were not payable.

¶83

The 1®* respondent has filed counter affidavit denying these

¶84

allegations. 8. However, there is a doubt as to the service of the assessment order and the penalty order on the petitioner.

¶85

\ f I i

¶86

As far as service of notices prior to the passing^oftheorders are concerned, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that he was depressed on account of his business losses and was unable to file his objections.

¶87

In these circumstances, keeping in view of the fact that there is a cloud over service of the assessment order and the penalty order, it would be appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority against the assessment order and the penalty order even though the period for filing of the appeal has lapsed. This

¶88

¶89

Court, in view of the cloud over the service of the orders, permits the petitioner to move the appellate authority within 30 days from the date of this order.

¶90

Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of. There shall

¶91

be no order as to costs.

¶92

As sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There

¶93

shall be no order as to costs.

¶94

To.

¶95

//TRUE COPY//

¶96

Sd/- B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶97

SECftTOOFFICER

¶98

The Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT-II) Dept A.P. Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, AP.

¶99

Commercial Tax Officer, Krishnalanka Circle. Vijayawada.

¶100

Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Krishnalanka Circle, Vijayawada.

¶101

One CC to SRI V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

¶102

COMM|BCIAL TAX (AP), High Court of Andhra

¶103

One CC to SRI S SURI BABU Advocate [OPUC]

¶104

Three CD Copies GSSK

i”.

HIGH COURT

DATED: 20/11/2024

COMMON ORDER

WP.No.5827 & 5828 of 2018

¶111

— *
■gf AHDHj
g 0? APR 2025
^ . Current Section ^

¶112

DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITIONS

¶113

WITHOUT COSTS

M/S. Skr Enterprises v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Skr Enterprises v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Krishna Murthy, Vs Mr.B.Raja Sekhar

Tummeda Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N v Varshit Goud Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s.Tamogna Enterprises Private Limited Vs Commercial Tax Officer

M/s. Sapthagiri Traders, Vs the Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes Dept)

M/s. Sapthagiri Traders, Vs the Assistant Commissioner(State Taxes Dept)