Partly allowed

M/s.Kanyalal and Sons v. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (Ct) (Fac)

Telangana HC3 Sept 2013WP/25608/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order addresses three writ petitions challenging dismissal of VAT appeals. The High Court set aside the impugned orders because the appellate authority dismissed the appeals without hearing the petitioner, who had requested a personal hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 07.06.2013 set aside; direction to Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vijayawada to pass appropriate orders afresh after hearing the petitioner.

M/s.Kanyalal and Sons Vs Appellate Deputy… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND

¶2

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶3

WRIT PETITION Nos.25607, 25608 and 25614 OF 2013

¶4

Date: 03.09.2013

¶5

Between:

¶6

M/s. Kanyalal & Sons

¶7

…Petitioner

¶8

And

¶9

Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) (FAC) Vijayawada, and two others

¶10

…Respondents

¶11

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND

¶12

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION Nos.25607, 25608 and 25614 OF 2013

¶13

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

¶14

The petitioner is a registered dealer on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Convent Street Circle, Vijayawada, both under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and A.P. VAT Act, 2005. By separate orders passed in Form-VAT305 the petitioner was assessed under the A.P. VAT Act, 2005, for the Assessment Years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. Against the said assessment orders, the petitioner preferred appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) and by separate orders dated 7.6.2013 all the appeals were dismissed. Hence, these three writ petitions.

¶15

We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

¶16

The impugned orders are assailed before us primarily on the ground that in spite of a specific request made by the petitioner for personal hearing, the appellate authority failed to provide such

¶17

opportunity and the appeals were dismissed without hearing the petitioner.

¶18

It was recorded in the impugned orders that though appearance was entered on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner was not present on the date of hearing in spite of notice. The petitioner disputes the said fact and it is pleaded that no notice was issued to the petitioner informing the date of hearing.

¶19

Be that as it may, the fact remains that before passing the impugned orders the petitioner was not heard.

¶20

Therefore, without going into the merits of the case we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders dated 07.06.2013, and all the Writ Petitions are disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vijayawada to pass appropriate orders afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

¶21

Accordingly, All the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Writ Petitions, shall stand closed.

¶22

_____________ G.ROHINI, J

¶23

________________

¶24

CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶25

Date: 03.09.2013 Mva

M/s.Kanyalal and Sons v. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (Ct) (Fac)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Kanyalal and Sons v. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (Ct) (Fac)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munupalli Srinivas, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chandranchal Enterprises, Vs State of A.P

Syed DastagirPasha Vs The Joint Transport Commissioner and Secretary

M/s.Kanyalal and Sons, Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (Ct) (Fac)

Samrudhi Marketing Corporation Ltd., Vs The State of Ap

Mandala Kista Reddy, Vs The Ramagundam Municipality