Disposed

M/s. Siemens Limited, v. Commercial Tax Officer

Telangana HC15 Oct 2012WP/29593/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of two writ petitions concerning the non-service of appellate orders by the second respondent. The court directed that the appellate orders be served today on the petitioner's counsel, deeming this date as effective communication, and allowed the petitioner to approach the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. No order as to costs was passed.

What did the court decide?

Appellate orders dated 05.05.2005 and 18.07.2006 deemed served on counsel today; petitioner allowed to file appeals to STAT within limitation from today.

M/s. Siemens Limited, Vs Commercial Tax Officer — 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.29593 and 29723 of 2012

¶3

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

¶4

The essential grievance of the petitioner is the failure of the second respondent-Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division in effecting service of the appellate orders dated 18.07.2006 and 05.05.2005 in respect of Assessment Years 2001-02 and 1999-2000 (in the respective writ petitions) on the petitioner and thereby disabling the petitioner from availing statutory right of further appeals to the Tribunal within the period of limitation enjoined by provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short ‘the 1957 Act’).

¶5

The facts in W.P.No.29723 of 2012 are recorded as illustrative of the generic grievance of the petitioner.

¶6

For the Assessment Year 1999-2000, the petitioner a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent under the 1957 Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short ‘the 1956 Act’) was levied a penalty of Rs.5,39,930/-. The appeal preferred by the petitioner thereagainst is learnt to have been rejected on 05.05.2005 but the appellate order has not been communicated to the petitioner.

¶7

Similar is the situation in respect of the Assessment Year 200102 in W.P.No.29593 of 2012, wherein the appellate order dated 18.07.2006 is alleged not to have been communicated to the petitioner.

¶8

On obtaining instructions, the learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes – Sri P. Balaji Varma states that the second respondent – Appellate Authority has forwarded the appellate

¶9

orders in respect of the two Assessment Years in question to the first respondent for onward service to the petitioner, but the records of the first respondent do not disclose service of the appellate orders on the petitioner. As the essential grievance of the petitioner pertains to the non-service of the original appellate orders rejecting the petitioner’s appeals and thereby disabling the petitioner from pursuing the further appeals to the STAT, in fairness the learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes states that these appellate orders are being served on the counsel for the petitioner today and this date shall be the effective date of communication of the orders dated 05.05.2005 and 18.07.2006 (representing the Assessment Years 1999-2000 and 2001-02) passed by the second respondent and that the petitioner may in the circumstances prefer appeals to the STAT if so advised within the period of limitation computed from today.

¶10

In the facts and circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of recording the fact that the appellate orders dated 05.05.2005 and 18.07.2006 passed by the second respondent rejecting the petitioner’s appeals pertaining to the Assessment Years 1999-2000 and 2001-02 respectively have been served on the counsel for the petitioner (common petitioner in the two writ petitions) today and were not served earlier. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies against these orders in accordance with law. In the circumstances however, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶12

Date: 15.10.2012

¶13

JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶14

¶15

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶17

WRIT PETITION Nos.29593 and 29723 of 2012 (order of the Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram)

¶18

Date: 15.10.2012

¶19

M/s. Siemens Limited, v. Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Siemens Limited, v. 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

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.

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

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

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