Partly allowed

M/s.Laasya Constructions, v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Telangana HC10 Apr 2013WP/10792/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an assessment order and penalty order issued under the A.P. Value Added Tax Act. The Court set aside the orders as they were issued without specific authorization, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned assessment order dated 30.11.2012 and the penalty order dated 18.01.2013 are set aside. The writ petition is disposed of.

M/s.Laasya Constructions, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer — GST and Indirect Tax | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.10792 OF 2013

¶4

Dated: 10.04.2013

¶5

Between: M/s. Laasya Constructions .. Petitioner And The Commercial Tax Officer and another .. Respondents

¶6

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.10792 OF 2013

¶8

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G.Rohini)

¶9

The petitioner is a proprietary concern carrying on business in execution of works contract and it is a registered dealer on the rolls of the 1^st respondent under the A.P. Value Added Tax, 2005.

¶10

This writ petition is filed assailing the assessment order dated 30.11.2012 made by the 1^st respondent for the period 2009-10 to 2011-12 as well as the penalty order in Form VAT 203 dated 18.01.2013. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that the consequential notices dated 22.01.2013 and 07.03.2013 issued by the 1^st respondent demanding the disputed tax and penalty under the threat of coercive steps, are arbitrary and illegal.

¶11

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri P.Balaji Varma, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes appearing for the respondents.

¶12

It is pleaded in the writ petition that though the 1^st respondent is stated to have been authorised by the 2^nd respondent on 10.10.2011 itself even before conducting the audit, there was no specific authorisation for conducting assessment and therefore the issuance of show cause notice as well as the assessment order dated 30.11.2012 and the consequential penalty order dated 18.01.2013 are without authority of law and jurisdiction.

¶13

The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted

¶14

that it is fact that there was no specific authorization for making the assessment.

¶15

In view of the admitted facts noticed above and in the light of the law laid down in Sri Balaji Flour Mills v. Commercial Tax Officer-II, Chittoor & Others [52 APSTJ 85], the impugned assessment order dated 30.11.2012 and the consequential penalty order dated 18.01.2013 are unsustainable and are liable to be set aside.

¶16

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the impugned order of assessment and the penalty order are hereby set aside, and the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the respondents to make a fresh assessment following due process of law. No costs.

¶17

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶18

_____________ G.ROHINI, J _______________________ C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

¶19

Date: 10.04.2013 ssp/ivd

M/s.Laasya Constructions, v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Laasya Constructions, v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Srinidha Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition)

Jaggaiahpet Municipality, Vs The Asst. Commissioner

M/s Enmar Logistics Private Limited, Vs The Deputy Commissioner

Jaggaiahpet Municipality, Vs The Asst. Commissioner

M/s. Mohan Enterprises, Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise

Smt. Hetal H. Doshi Vs Sri Pankaj M. Doshi