Allowed

M/s.Jmc Projects (India) Limited, v. Commercial Tax Officer

Telangana HC31 Dec 2012WP/38272/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the endorsement rejecting the petitioner's application for C forms. The order directed the petitioner to reconsider the application afresh based on a superceded circular issued by the second respondent.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the endorsement dated 26-11-2012 and direction to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's application afresh within two weeks.

M/s.Jmc Projects (India) Limited, Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

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

¶2

Writ Petition No. 38272 of 2012

¶3

Dated: 31-12-2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s JMC Projects (India) Limited, rep. by its Vice President Nithin Parikh.

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

Commercial Tax Officer, Deba Gardens, Siripuram Junction, Visakhapatnam and another.

¶9

…Respondents.

¶10

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

¶11

Writ Petition No. 38272 of 2012

¶12

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

¶13

Heard Dr. S.R.R.Viswanath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Balaji Varma, learned Special Govt. Pleader for Commercial Taxes for the respondent.

¶14

Sri Varma seeks further time for filing a counter-affidavit in the context of time having been granted on two earlier occasions for the same purpose.

¶15

Dr. Viswanath, learned counsel for the petitioner places for the perusal of this Court, a Circular bearing reference No. CCT’s Ref.No. A II(2)/292/2012 dated 6-9-2012 of the 2^nd respondent whereby the earlier Circular bearing Ref. No. CCT’s Ref.AII(2)/292/2012 dated 308-2012 has been superceded.

¶16

The writ petition is filed aggrieved by an endorsement dated 2611-2012 issued by the 1^st respondent on the basis of the 2^nd respondent’s earlier Circular dated 30-8-2012 which was rescinded/superceded by the current Circular dated 6-9-2012. The grievance of the petitioner, in substance, pertains to the refusal by the 1^st respondent of the petitioner’s application for issuance of ‘C’ forms on the ground that the goods are neither incorporated in the execution of the works nor fall under any of the purposes enumerated in clause (b) of Section 8 (3) of the CST Act, 1956. This endorsement of rejection of the petitioner’s application for ‘C’ forms was issued on the

¶17

basis of the now superceded Circular of the 2^nd respondent dated 308-2012. In the light of the developments above and in view of the supercession of the earlier Circular by the Circular dated 6-9-2012 by the 2^nd respondent, we dispose of the writ petition quashing the endorsement dated 26-11-2012 of the 1^st respondent and directing the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner’s application for issuance of ‘C’ forms afresh and de novo and without reference to the earlier Circular of the 2^nd respondent dated 30-8-2012 and in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶18

_________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J

¶19

31^st December, 2012

¶20

_______________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

¶21

GRR

M/s.Jmc Projects (India) Limited, v. Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Jmc Projects (India) 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 Apple Industries Ltd. Vs State of Ap Before Stat Hyd

Sri K. Veerabhadra Rao, Vs The Dy. Transport Commissioner and

M/S.Venkatadri Oils Ltd/Vja Vs Commssioner of Commercial Taxes/Hyd

Cairn Energy India Private Limited, Vs Central Board of Excise and Customs

M/s. Crown Beers India Private Limited, Vs Commercial Tax Officer

M/s. Srushti Con-Tech, Vs Commercial Tax Officer - I