Disposed

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

Telangana HC15 Nov 2011WP/29725/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner company imported cranes under re-export status but paid life tax. After re-exporting the cranes, it sought a refund under the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. The High Court directed the third respondent to process the refund application within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the third respondent to consider the petitioner's application for refund of life tax paid for three cranes within six weeks.

M/s.Continental Engineering Coporation ,9th floor… — Service and Employment | 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.29725 OF 2011

¶3

DATED 1 5 TH NOVEMBER, 2011

¶4

BETWEEN M/s.Continental Engineering Corporation, 9^th Floor, DLF Tower, 9A Next to Ericsson Building, DLF City Phase III, Gurgaon – 122 002. Having its branch office at APERL Complex, Himayat Sagar Road, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad – 500 30. Rep. by its Project Manager, Mr.Lin Hua Chong. … Petitioner And

¶5

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others.

¶6

… Respondents

¶7

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

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.29725 OF 2011

¶9

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)

¶10

The petitioner Company is in the business of civil construction of roads, bridges, flyovers, railways, etc. It was awarded the project known as ‘Outer Ring Road’ (ORR) undertaken by Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority in June, 2006. In connection with the said work, the petitioner Company imported on lease three cranes of 50 MT, 100 MT and 120 MT capacity from Taiwan under ‘Re-Export’ certificate basis. Statedly, the petitioner paid quarterly taxes under the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 (for short, ‘the Act’) and as per the notification issued by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 13.04.2006 upto 31.03.2010.

¶11

Andhra Pradesh State Legislature by A.P.Act 11 of 2010 inserted the third proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 3 as well as Schedule IV to the said Act. As per this Act, in the case of construction equipment vehicles life tax has to be paid at the rates specified in Schedule IV. As the petitioner did not pay the life tax, the three cranes were seized on 14.05.2010 whereafter the petitioner paid life tax amount of Rs.4,06,440/- for 50 MT crane, Rs.7,40,040/- for 100 MT crane and Rs.7,52,180/- for 120 MT crane. It is the further case of the petitioner that the three cranes were re-exported to Taiwan. Therefore, the petitioner made representations including the one made on 23.06.2011 to the Hon’ble Minister for Transport seeking refund of the proportionate amount of life tax under Section 4(1)(bb) of the Act and as per the

¶12

notification vide G.O.Ms.No.411 dated 28.04.1987. Alleging that even after lapse of one and half years the respondents did not refund the amount, the present writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus for declaration and direction.

¶13

In an unreported Judgment in KHADER BASHA V/s. THE

¶14

REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CHITTOOR^[1] , a Division Bench of this Court consisting of one of us (VVSR,J) inter alia considered the question of refund. Noticing the additional affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Transport and R&B Department, that necessary guidelines will be issued for refund of life tax paid in the event of construction equipment vehicles leaving the State, this Court left it open to the Government of Andhra Pradesh to issue necessary guidelines/make rules for refund of life tax paid by the owners of the construction equipment vehicles. In view of the observations in KHADER BASHA, we thought it fit to hear the learned Advocate General for the State. He appeared yesterday and today. He would submit that the State Government would require six weeks time for formulating necessary guidelines in this regard. In so far as this case is concerned, he would also request six weeks time to dispose of the application made by the petitioner for refund of the life tax paid for three cranes. As the cranes have already been re-exported to Taiwan, there would not be any difficulty to the third respondent to process the application as per Section 4(1)(bb) of the Act and the notification vide G.O.Ms.No.411 dated 28.04.1987.

¶15

The Writ Petition accordingly shall stand disposed of directing the third respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for refund of the life tax paid for the three cranes proportionately within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶16

______________ V.V.S.RAO, J.

¶17

____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J.

¶18

15^TH NOVEMBER, 2011. Note: Issue copy by day after tomorrow. (B/O) PGS

¶19

[1] Writ Petition No.173 of 2010 and batch dated 28.09.2011.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

St. Alysius School, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

B. Ramanaiah Constructions Engineers and Contractors Vs The Managing Director A.P. Road Development

N. Sasikar Vs The Joint Transport Commissioner and Secretary

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

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

M/s. Pll-Pcl Joint Venture Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax