Disposed

K.Sanjeeva Reddy, v. The Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings

Telangana HC7 Mar 2006WP/3613/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner claimed reimbursement for excess sales tax deducted due to a legislative change. The High Court held the dispute required arbitration under the agreement and disposed of the writ petition while granting liberty to make a representation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; liberty granted to make a representation to Respondent No.3; no costs awarded.

K.Sanjeeva Reddy, Vs The Executive Engineer, Roads… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI

¶6

and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.3613 of 2006

¶8

Between:

¶9

K.Sanjeeva Reddy,

¶10

..... PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1.The Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings, National Highways Division,, Warangal Division & and 3 others.

¶13

.....RESPONDENTS

¶14

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Bilal Nazki,)

¶15

The grievance of the petitioner is that although he had an agreement with the respondents that sales tax shall be deducted

¶16

at 2% percent of turn over, but they have deducted 4%.

¶17

The respondents claim that there was change in Law, and in terms of the Section 68 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, which became effective from 01-04-2005, 4% tax was deducted.

¶18

Since the rate of tax has been changed by the Legislature and not by respondents 1 to 3, whether this enhanced tax has to be paid by respondents 1 to 3 or the petitioner is a matter, which will have to be considered in view of the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the parties.

¶19

The respondents claim that in terms of Clause 10.4 of the agreement, the petitioner was bound to pay the tax and in Clause 10.5, merely the rate prevalent at the time of signing of the agreement was mentioned.

¶20

However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had entered into the agreement on the premise that he will have to pay 2% of the turn over by way of sales tax and not 4%, therefore, he needs to be reimbursed with 2% of the amount, which has already been deducted. The learned Counsel has also stated that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.11 Finance (Works & Projects FB) Department, dated 29-07-2005, which gives the petitioner the benefit he claims.

¶21

These are the matters, which can be gone into by the Arbitrator, as the agreement provides for Arbitration. In this view of the matter, before the petitioner applies for Arbitration, we also give him liberty to make a representation to respondent No.3, who

¶22

may consider the matter and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks of making such representation.

¶23

Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.

¶24

--------------------------

¶25

(Bilal Nazki, J)

¶26

7^th March, 2006

¶27

--------------------------

¶28

(G.Chandraiah, J)

¶29

LUR

K.Sanjeeva Reddy, v. The Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sanjeeva Reddy, v. The Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings

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

M/s. Devika Agencies, Vs The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Legal)

M/s. Annapurna Roller Flour Mill Vs Assistant Commissioner (Ct) Ltu

Concorde Motors (India) Limited, formerly known as Vs The Assistant Commissioner (Ct) (Ltu)

M/s. Zuari Cements Limited, Krishna Nagar Vs Commissioner of Industries, Government of

M/s.Sirpur Paper Mills Limited, 5-9-22/1/1, 1st floor Vs The Assistant Commissioner (Ct), Intelligence

M/s. Krebs Bio-Chemicals Limited, 15-474, Vs Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes