Allowed

M/s.Srinivasa Agencies, v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Telangana HC28 Sept 2012WP/29316/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two big-bill writ petitions by wholesale cool drink dealers challenging orders of Assessment under the AP VAT Act. The High Court held that the orders were perverse due to a total non-application of mind, failing to analyze objections. They were quashed with liberty to pass fresh orders. Petitions allowed with costs. Success: Allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of Assessment dated 23.04.2012 quashed. Liberty granted to pass fresh orders considering objections. Costs of Rs. 1,000/- in each pepper imposed.

M/s.Srinivasa Agencies, Vs The Commercial Tax… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.29331 & 29316 of 2012

¶3

COMMON ORDER (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram):

¶4

The petitioners are proprietary concerns carrying on business in cool drinks on wholesale basis and dealing with products of Hindustan Cocacola Bewerages (P) Limited. They are registered dealers on the rolls of the first respondent, under the

¶5

AP VAT Act, 2005. Orders of Assessment, both dated 23.12.2012 passed by the first respondent, in respect of the two petitioners are challenged on the substantive ground that despite the petitioners’ responses submitted to the show cause notices and final show cause notices proposing the Assessment, the first respondent has failed to consider the same and has passed the orders of Assessment and confirmed the proposals in the show cause notices, by an ipse dixit order stating that the contentions urged by the dealers are not tenable.

¶6

A perusal of the impugned orders of Assessment dated 23.04.2012 passed by the first respondent clearly disclose a total non application of mind to the specific objections urged by the dealers in response to the show cause notices issued earlier. The common reason recorded by the first respondent in the impugned orders of Assessment is that the contentions urged by the dealers “are not tenable”. No analysis of the petitioners objections is apparent.

¶7

Since the impugned orders of Assessment have not considered and analysed the petitioners objections and recorded reasons, the orders are perverse and liable to the quashed.

¶8

Accordingly, while granting liberty to the first respondent to pass fresh orders of Assessment, duly considering the objections of the petitioners submitted in response to the show cause notices issued, the impugned orders of Assessment, both dated 23.04.2012 are quashed.

¶9

Since the first respondent has passed wholly unreasoned and perverse orders of Assessment, we consider it appropriate to allow the writ petitions with costs of Rs.1,000/- in each writ petition to be paid by the first respondent by way of a deposit to the Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authority, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. A copy of this order shall also be marked to the Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authority for information.

¶10

The writ petitions are allowed as above with costs.

¶11

JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶12

JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶13

Date: 28.09.2012 va

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶15

WRIT PETITION Nos.29331 & 29316 of 2012 (order of the Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram)

¶16

Date: 28.09.2012

¶17

M/s.Srinivasa Agencies, v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Srinivasa Agencies, v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iv Vs Peninsular Investment Ltd.

P.R. Bhandari, S/o. Surajmal Bhandari, Vs The Union of India

T.Poornachandra Rao Vs Chairmanandmd/Syndicate Bank/Manipaland 3 or

M/s.Kalavathi Stores, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

Vinjamuri Venkateswarulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by Principal Secetary

Ragha Vendra Prestress Products Private Limited, Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes