Allowed

Ananthamal Kasi Rice Mill, Karisalkulam, Koilpatti v. The Dy.Commissioner, Commercial Taxes

Telangana HC16 Nov 2011WP/20875/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the arbitrary levy of tax and compounding fees. Relying on precedents regarding Section 28 inspections, the Court directed the respondents to refund the collected amounts if there is no existing liability under the APGST Act.

What did the court decide?

Retrospective refund or adjustment of tax and compounding fees collected if no existing liability is found under the APGST Act.

Ananthamal Kasi Rice Mill, Karisalkulam… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.20875 of 2003

¶3

Dated:16.11.2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

Ananthamal Kasi Rice Mill.

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The Dy.Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Nellore, And another.

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND

¶11

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶12

WRIT PETITION No.20875 of 2003

¶13

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)

¶14

The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Kovilpatti. It is their case that they engaged three lorries for transporting 720 bags of ‘D’ category rice to a dealer in Huzurnagar Road, Kodad, to whom they sold the goods. They were intercepted at B.V.Palem integrated check post on 10.02.2003. On an allegation that the vehicles were transporting rice meant for public distribution system, the rice was seized and handed over to a rice miller. A proposal was mooted for detention of the stock as well as prosecution. Therefore, the petitioner paid the compounding fee and the tax to a tune of Rs.43,200/-. After enquiry, respondents came to know that rice was

¶15

meant to be used as a cattle feed and released the goods.

¶16

In the above stated background the petitioner filed the instant writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus for refund of the amount paid and declaring the levy of tax as well as the compounding fees as illegal and arbitrary.

¶17

Even though the writ petition was admitted over eight years ago, counter affidavit is not filed. However, having regard to the nature of disposal infra, it may not be necessary to apply the principle of nontraverse in this case.

¶18

A Full Bench of this Court in Abmica Lamp House v. Commercial

¶19

Tax Officer (Int)-I Enforcemen t^[1] considered the extent and scope of the power under Section 28 of APGST Act. The method adopted by the Officials of the Commercial Tax Department, especially, Intelligence and Vigilance staff, in inspecting the premises and collecting the evaded tax as well as compounding fee on the threat of launching prosecution has been adversely commented upon by the Full Bench. While laying down guidelines in the matter of inspections, search, seizure and confiscation under Section 28 of the APGST Act, Hon’ble Sri Justice Ananda Reddy

¶20

in paragraph 30 of the judgment observed as under.

¶21

In the result, the writ petitions are allowed setting aside the impugned orders wherever no assessments are made for the disputed turnover, and consequently the amounts collected under the impugned order are ordered to be refunded or adjusted if there are any existing outstanding demands. In cases where assessments are made, the collected tax shall be subject to the outcome of the statutory appeals, if any. Similarly, if the compounding fee levied and collected is equal to the tax without any assessments, in such cases, the compounding orders are also set aside and the fee collected is to be refunded to the dealers or adjusted if there are any existing outstanding demands. No costs.

¶22

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to refund the amount collected towards tax and compounding fee, if there is no existing liability against the petitioner under the APGST Act.

¶23

_______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)

¶24

_____________________ (SANJAY KUMAR, J)

¶25

16.11.2011 vs

¶26

[1] (2005) 142 STC 551 = (2005) 40 APSTJ 56

Ananthamal Kasi Rice Mill, Karisalkulam, Koilpatti v. The Dy.Commissioner, Commercial Taxes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananthamal Kasi Rice Mill, Karisalkulam, Koilpatti v. The Dy.Commissioner, Commercial Taxes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] Vs M/S Sri Rayalaseema Green Energy Limited

M/s.Continental Engineering Coporation ,9th floor Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its

The Commissioner of Income Tax Iv, Vs M/s. P.M. Telelinks Ltd.

M/s. Flowmore Limited, Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kovvur

S.Rajeswar Reddy, Vs The Superintending Engineer

M/s. Kalyani Trading Company Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Int.)