Partly allowed

M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, v. Joint Commissioner (Ct) , Legal, Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC15 Oct 2012WP/29376/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order granting a 50% stay on disputed Central Sales Tax. The Court held that the lower authority failed to consider specific inter-state sale declaration forms undisputedly submitted by the petitioner and remitted the matters for fresh determination.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 05.09.2012 was set aside and the revision was remanded to the first respondent for fresh disposal.

M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

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

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.29376 of 2012

¶3

Date: 15.10.2012

¶4

Between: M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad – 502 032, Rep. by its Deputy General Manager (Finance), Sri S.Padmanabhan

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

AND

¶7

Joint Commissioner (CT), Legal, Andhra Pradesh, II Floor, C.T Building, M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad and two others

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO WRIT PETITION No.29376 of 2012

¶11

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

¶12

Challenge is to the order dated 05.09.2012, whereby the first respondent granted stay of 50% of the disputed tax involved, namely 50% of Rs.65,57,297/- amounting to Rs.32,78,649/-; in the following circumstances.

¶13

The petitioner - Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited is a public sector company and an undertaking of the Government of India. It is registered as a dealer under the AP VAT Act, 2005 (for short ‘the 2005 Act’) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short ‘the 1956 Act’) on the rolls of the third respondent.

¶14

On 31.03.2012, the third respondent passed an order of Assessment for the year 2008-09 under the 1956 Act and levied tax of Rs.50,29,55,200/-. After deducting the tax paid including VAT adjustment of Rs.39,93,48,876/-, the third respondent raised a demand for the balance of Rs.10,36,06,324/-. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent – Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division along with a stay petition, on 30.04.2012. The second respondent disposed of the stay petition by an order dated 02.07.2012 granting stay of only 25% of the disputed tax, allegedly recording that the petitioner had filed ‘C’ Declaration Forms worth Rs.13,14,92,499/- and ‘F’ Declaration Forms of a value of Rs.3,76,50,109/-. According to the petitioner, the disputed tax relating to these declaration forms comes to around Rs.2,07,75,735/-. The petitioner alleges to have intimated to the second respondent –

¶15

Appellate Authority regarding the deposit of 12.5% of the disputed tax while preferring the appeal before the second respondent, coming to Rs.1,31,13,684/- and also states to have informed the second respondent that the disputed tax pertaining to ‘C’ and ‘F’ Forms filed plus 12.5% pre-deposit covers around 1/3^rd of the disputed tax. Be that as it may.

¶16

Aggrieved by the grant of stay for only 25% of the disputed tax ordered by the second respondent on 02.07.2012, the petitioner preferred a revision before the first respondent. Before the first respondent as well at the time of hearing of the revision, the petitioner states to have filed further ‘C’ Forms under E-1 transactions, of a value of Rs.5,58,22,452/- and ‘C’ Forms covering inter-state sales of a value of Rs.4,54,60,205/-. According to the petitioner, the amount involved under these Forms is around Rs.1,17,51,127/-. The petitioner states to have intimated to the first respondent–Revisional Authority that a turnover of Rs.5,24,58,369/- was wrongly assessed in the order of Assessment despite the petitioner submitting all the documentary evidence pertaining to these turnovers of sale in the course of import.

¶17

The first respondent passed the impugned order granting stay of 50% of the disputed tax of Rs.65,57,297/- i.e., granted relief to an extent of Rs.32,78,649/-. In para 6 of the affidavit accompanying the writ petition, the petitioner has set out a table enumerating the declaration forms filed before the first and the second respondents, namely ‘C’ Forms and ‘F’ Forms and the disputed turnover pertaining to sales in the course of import and the disputed tax covered by these declaration forms and the sales in the course of import. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the impugned order has not rationally considered the claim of the petitioner, a Government of India Enterprise and a vibrant public sector undertaking.

¶18

The learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial

¶19

Taxes, Sri B. Venkatadri fairly concedes the position that there is no discussion whatsoever in the impugned order insofar as the amount of Rs.4,54,60,205/- representing the ‘C’ Forms pertaining to inter-state sales filed by the petitioner before the said respondent and in respect of which the disputed tax is asserted to be Rs.47,73,221/-.

¶20

In view of the above submission on behalf of the respondents by the learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 05.09.2012 disposing of the revision cannot be sustained and the matter will have to be remitted to the first respondent for de novo determination and disposal.

¶21

Since the matter is being remitted to the first respondent for disposal afresh, the first respondent may consider the other substantive grievances of the petitioner pertaining to the ‘C’ Forms and ‘F’ Forms including ‘C’ Forms pertaining to E-1 transactions filed before the Appellate and Revisional Authorities for an appropriate exercise of discretion in the matter of granting stay pending disposal of the appeal before the second respondent.

¶22

On the analysis above, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside the order bearing Reference No. JC Order No.138 dated 05.09.2012 passed by the first respondent. The revision before the first respondent shall stand restored to be disposed of by the said respondent in accordance with law, duly considering the further pleas which the petitioner may present within a period of two weeks from today. No costs.

¶23

JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶24

Date: 03.10.2012

¶25

JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶26

¶27

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

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.29376 of 2012 (order of the Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram)

¶29

Date: 15.10.2012

¶30

M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, v. Joint Commissioner (Ct) , Legal, Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, v. Joint Commissioner (Ct) , Legal, Andhra Pradesh

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

M/s. Kamadhenu Kirana and General Stores Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs M/s. Deepak Galvanisingh and Engg. Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Exise Vs M/s.Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd.

Patti , Begari Ramaiah, Vs The Honble Chief Justice of the Honble Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Siemens Limited, Vs Commercial Tax Officer

M/s. Sbq Steels Limited, Vs The Commissioner of Customs