Dismissed

Rnz Travels, v. The Commercial Tax Officer (Audit)

Telangana HC28 Nov 2012WP/36760/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order dismissed two writ petitions challenging assessments under the AP VAT Act. The Court refused to adjudicate the merits under Article 226 as statutory appeals were available. It clarified that an endorsement by the Commercial Tax Commissioner had no statutory force and must be ignored by appellate authorities. The petitions were dismissed with liberty to pursue appeals.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed with liberty to pursue appellate remedy available under Section 31 of the Act.

Rnz Travels, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer (Audit) — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

Writ Petition Nos. 36760 and 36761 of 2012

¶3

Dated: 28-11-2012

¶4

Between: RNZ Travels, rep.by its Partner Rizwan Hyderabad. …Petitioner And The Commercial Tax Officer (Audit) Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad and others.

¶5

…Respondents.

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶7

Writ Petition Nos. 36760 and 36761 of 2012

¶8

Common order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram)

¶9

These writ petitions assail orders of Assessment passed under the provisions of the AP VAT Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’), not on the ground of patent or inherent lack of jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer but on the ground that the Assessing Officer misconstrued provisions of the AP VAT Act, 2005 and brought to tax, goods or services not liable to levy of tax under the Act.

¶10

As the impugned orders of Assessment are within the jurisdiction of the Assessing authority though alleged to be in erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, we are not inclined to take up adjudication of the issues presented in these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, since the petitioners have an efficacious alternative statutory remedy, of an appeal under Section 31 of the Act.

¶11

Sri Raghavan, the learned counsel for the petitioners however apprehends that the endorsement dated 18-10-2012 issued by the 2^nd respondent-the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes setting out a gratuitous legal opinion that (a) hire of taxis/cars to units in SEZ under the category of rent a cab service and (b) charges from metered taxis/radio cabs, constitute transfer of a right to use, taxable under Section 4 (8) of the Act, would chill appellate discretion in the event of petitioners preferring appeals. On a query from this Court, the learned counsel stated that this endorsement was issued by the 2^nd

¶12

respondent on a representation made by the petitioner. However neither the counsel for the petitioners nor the learned Special Govt. Pleader for Commercial Taxes is able to point out any statutory provision qua which the 2^nd respondent is authorized to tender an advisory opinion either as an Advance Ruling Authority or otherwise. This Court therefore clarifies that the endorsement dated 18-10-2012 has neither a declaratory nor a constitutive force qua the provisions of the Act. The Appellate authority must consider the appeals preferred by the petitioners on merits without being influenced or even referring to the endorsement dated 18-10-2012 of the 2^nd respondent.

¶13

On the analysis above and subject to the declaration of inconsequentiality of the 2^nd respondent endorsement dated 18-10-2012, the writ petitions are dismissed with liberty granted to the petitioners to pursue the appellate remedy. No costs.

¶14

_________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J

¶15

28^th November, 2012

¶16

_______________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

¶17

GRR

Rnz Travels, v. The Commercial Tax Officer (Audit)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rnz Travels, v. The Commercial Tax Officer (Audit)

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 Customs and Central Excise Vs M/s. Swarna Tollway (P) Ltd., Nellore district

M/s. Vodafone South Limited, Vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Vs M/s Swarna Tollway (P) Ltd., Nellore, Nellore District

M/s Gupta Road Lines, Vs Itchapuram Municipality

E.Kistaiah Vs The Secretary

Noori Travels, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer