The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a demand for under-declared VAT tax. Relying on a counter-affidavit stating that a third respondent's clarification rendered the demand unenforceable, the court found no subsisting grievance and dismissed the petition without costs.
The writ petition was disposed of with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Writ Petition No. 32666 of 2012
Dated: 31-12-2012
Between:
M/s Srushti Con-Tech, rep. by its Managing Partner J.Madhusudhan Reddy.
…Petitioner
And Commercial Tax Officer-I, Kadapa Dist. and others.
…Respondents.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Writ Petition No. 32666 of 2012
Oral order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram)
Sri G. Narendra Chetty, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the averments in para 5 of the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, no adjudication of the grievance in the writ petition may be warranted.
The petitioner is a registered dealer on the rolls of the 1st respondent and is a works contractor. In terms of Section 20(1) read with 23(1) of the AP VAT Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Rules thereunder, the petitioner a dealer registered under Section 17 of the Act filed its return for the month of March, 2012 on 30-4-2012 disclosing an excess VAT credit of Rs.7990,222/- and carried the credit forward for the months April, May, June, July, and August, 2012. As no discrepancies were noticed, Revenue accepted the selfassessment for the tax period March, 2012. The petitioner however filed a revised return in form VAT 213 for March, 2012 on 24-8-2012 disclosing the under declared tax of Rs.7,15,656/- in the original VAT 200 return, in terms of Rule 23(6)(a) of the AP VAT Rules and claimed refund of Rs.72,74,566/-.
The writ petition was filed challenging a demand by the respondents for payment of under declared tax of Rs. 7,15,656/- along with interest of Rs.35,784/-, in all Rs.7,51,440/-, for the tax period March 2012 despite the petitioner being entitled for refund of
Rs.72,74,566/-. This grievance is the consequence on the notice of under declaration of VAT issued in form VAT 307 dated 27-8-2012 and subsequent endorsement dated 4-10-2012 issued by the Revenue.
In para 5 of the counter-affidavit the 1st respondent states that endorsement to the petitioner’s representation to the 3rd respondent on 30-8-2012 seeking intervention of the said respondent in the matter, the 3rd respondent issued a clarification dated 20-9-2012. As a consequence of this clarification, the demand set out in the 1st respondent’s proceedings dated
27-8-2012 and 4-10-2012 will not be enforced.
In the circumstances above the petitioner has no subsisting grievance. T2he writ petition is disposed of recording the averments in para 5 of the 1st respondent’s counter-affidavit. No costs.
_________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J
31st December, 2012
_______________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J
GRR
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition regarding under-declared tax demand subsists given a subsequent clarification released by the third respondent.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s Srushti Con-Tech
Commercial Tax Officer-I, Kadapa Dist.
Goda Raghuram
M.S. Ramachandra Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
