M/s. Kemicides Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/S. KEMICIDES CROP PROTECTION PVT. LTD.,, S. NO. 151, CHETINIPALLE VILLAGE, KURNOOL ROAD, GOOTY, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, MR. P.V. VIJAY KUMAR

¶15

...PETITIONER

¶16

AND

¶17

1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, , GUNTAKAL CIRCLE, D.NO 17/205, NEAR MARKET, GOOTY ROAD, GUNTAKAL, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH -515801.

¶18

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, TIRUPATI, FLAT NO. 101, THUNGA RESIDENCY, RANIPARANTHAKA DEVI MARG, KORAMEENUGUNTA, RENIGUNTA ROAD, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517501.

¶19

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

NJSJ & TCDS, J WP_18096_2026

¶22

2

¶23

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring that the impugned Order vide DIN DIN3708052610984, dated 08-05-2026, passed by the First Respondent for the Tax Period 06/2016 to 06-2017, under the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2017, pursuant to the Remand Order of the Second Respondent vide ADC Order No DIN3711052320624, dated 11-05-2023, without following the remand directions, on ground not mentioned in the show cause notice, without considering the objections along with books of accounts, statements, documentary evidences etc., submitted by the Petitioner, by requiring the Petitioner to compile the evidence into two formats prepared by the First Respondent and without giving sufficient time to do so, as arbitrary, capricious, violative of the principles of natural justice, contrary to law, unjust, unsustainable and illegal and consequently set aside the same and pass such

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶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 be pleased to grant stay of ail further proceedings, including recovery of tax, DIN: pursuant to the impugned Order vide DIN3708052610984, dated 08-05-2026, passed by the First Respondent for the Tax Period 06/2016 to 06-2017, under the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2017, and pass such

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.G NARENDRA CHETTY

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

NJSJ & TCDS, J WP_18096_2026

¶31

3

¶32

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶33

AND

¶34

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR

¶35

WP No.18096 OF 2026

¶36

ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.C.D.Sekhar)

¶37

The petitioner was a registered dealer under AP VAT Act, 2005 on the rolls of the 1^st respondent. The petitioner was engaged in the business of trading of pesticides, insecticides fungicides etc., The petitioner suffered an order of assessment dated 24.06.2020 issued by the 1^st respondent whereunder the Input Tax Credit was restricted and raised demand of Rs.8,16,288/- and Rs.12,93,647/- for the tax periods 07/2016 to 03/2017 and 04/2017 to 06/2017 respectively by applying the formula as per Rule 20 (4) (b) of VAT Rules, 2005. Questioning the said assessment order the petitioner preferred statutory appeal before the 2^nd respondent on the ground that the petitioner had effected inter-state branch transfers as well as local VAT sales and claimed ITC as per Rule 20 (8). It is further contended that in such circumstances, the 1^st respondent erred in applying Rule 20 (4) (b) of VAT Rules, 2005 and ought not not to have restricted the ITC.

¶38

NJSJ & TCDS, J WP_18096_2026

¶39

4

¶40

The 2^nd respondent after hearing the appeal by order dt.11.05.2023 disposed of the same, by directing the 1^st respondent to conduct denovo enquiry and to pass appropriate orders. In pursuance of the said order, the 1^st respondent issued show cause notice dated 13.10.2025 calling upon the petitioner to file written objections along with documentary evidence if any, within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the said notice. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted reply dt.22.11.2025. The 1^st respondent thereafter, issued notice for personal hearing and after hearing the petitioner passed impugned order dt.08.05.2026 whereby and whereunder levied tax of Rs.20,64,959/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

¶41

The counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order under challenge is liable to be set aside as the assessment order was passed stating that the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence to establish that, specific inputs are meant for specific outputs only, to claim Input Tax Credit separately for taxable goods as per Rule 20 (6) of AP VAT Rules, despite the petitioner contended that there was no mixing of exempted goods and taxable goods and that no common inputs were used for exempted goods. He would further submit that, the assessment

¶42

NJSJ & TCDS, J WP_18096_2026

¶43

5

¶44

order is also liable to be set aside inasmuch as the assessing authority did not consider the purchase and sales details submitted by the petitioner on the ground that the same was not in the requested format by the said authority. He would further submit that the 1^st respondent also levied tax on packing material which was not proposed in the show cause notice.

¶45

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader while supporting the order under challenge would fairly submit that the show cause notice did not contain the proposal for levying tax on packing material.

¶46

Having considered the respective submissions on the counsel on either side, in normal course, this Court would not interfere with the assessment order as there is an effective alternative remedy of appeal is available under this statute. But, in the case on hand as rightly contended by the counsel for the petitioner, the assessment order was passed levying tax on packing material without there being any proposal in the show cause notice.

¶47

NJSJ & TCDS, J WP_18096_2026

¶48

6

¶49

Further, a perusal of the order under challenge would

¶50

show that the assessing authority did not consider purchase and sales details submitted by the petitioner on the ground that the same was not in the format as requested by him. In this connection, the assessing authority should have called for further information from the petitioner, which admittedly was not done. In the circumstances, as rightly contended by the counsel for the petitioner, non consideration of the material filed would tantamount to violation of principles of natural justice.

¶51

Further, during the course of hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, Sri S.A.V.Sai Kumar, fairly submitted that there was no proposal in the show cause notice with regard to levying tax on packing material.

¶52

For the reasons recorded supra, the assessment order dt.08.05.2026 is set aside by reserving liberty to the 1^st respondent to pass appropriate orders after issuing notice to the petitioner and pass orders afresh after affording opportunity of being heard.

¶53

NJSJ & TCDS, J WP_18096_2026

¶54

7

¶55

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall

¶56

be no order as to costs.

¶57

As a sequel, pending applications, if any shall stand closed.

¶58

___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA