Allowed

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

Telangana HC31 Dec 2012WP/38904/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an Order of Assessment that levied tax at 70% on certain turnovers without affording the petitioner a hearing to contest the higher rate, despite a show-cause notice proposing a lower rate.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Order of Assessment dated 10-12-2012 is quashed. Fresh Order of Assessment may be passed after reasonable opportunity.

M/s. Crown Beers India Private Limited, Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

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

¶2

Writ Petition No. 38904 of 2012

¶3

Dated: 31-12-2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s Crown Beers India Private Limited, rep. by its Director Kamal Saboo.

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

And Commercial Tax Officer, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

¶8

…Respondent.

¶9

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

¶10

Writ Petition No. 38904 of 2012

¶11

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

¶12

Heard Sri Dwarakanath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Venkatadri, learned Special Govt. pleader for Commercial Taxes for the respondent.

¶13

The Order of Assessment dated 10-12-2012 in respect of the year 2009-10 under the CST Act, 1956 is challenged by the petitioner on several grounds including that the respondent was not authorized to pass an Order of Assessment and that by the impugned order of Assessment, tax is levied at 70 per cent on turnovers not covered by ‘C’ forms and turnovers not covered by ‘F’ forms treating the later as inter-state sales. While in the show-cause notice dated 17-8-2010 the respondent proposed to bring the net turnover not covered by ‘C’, ‘F’ and ‘H’ forms at 12.5 per cent or 14.5 per cent, as the case may be treating them as exigable to tax at the rates stipulated in the V Schedule of the AP VAT Act, 2005.

¶14

On obtaining instructions and a consideration of the show-cause notice dated 17-8-2010 and the impugned Order of Assessment dated 10-12-2012, the learned Govt. Pleader fairly concedes the position that levy of CST at 70 poer cent in the impugned Order of Assessment is at variance with the proposals in the show-cause notice dated 17-82010.

¶15

In view of the submission on behalf of the respondent-Revenue

¶16

and the demonstrable fact that the petitioner had been assessed to liability to CST at 70 per cent, while in the show-cause notice dated 17-8-2010 the turnover not covered by ‘C’ and ‘F’ forms, was proposed to be taxed at the rate of 12.5 per cent and 14.5 per cent apparently under Schedule-V of the APVAT Act, 2005, the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity of representing against the higher quantum of liability assessed. The Order of Assessment cannot therefore be sustained and is accordingly quashed.

¶17

It is however open to the competent Assessing authority to pass a fresh Order of Assessment in accordance with law and after due and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.

¶18

In the light of the fact that the impugned Order of Assessment is set aside on the ground of denial of reasonable opportunity, we do not find it appropriate to consider the other challenges to the Order of Assessment urged in the writ petition. These are left open, should these other objections survive in any fresh Order of Assessment to be passed by the competent authority.

¶19

The writ petition is allowed. No costs.

¶20

_________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J

¶21

31^st December, 2012

¶22

_______________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

¶23

GRR

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Crown Beers India Private 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

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

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

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