Writ petition challenging an assessment order under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act. Court declined to entertain the petition as an equally efficacious statutory appeal was available but not filed. Petition dismissed, appeal directed.
Writ petition dismissed; petitioner directed to file appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.34090 OF 2011
DATED:27.12.2011
Between: M/s. Aditya Engineers and Technicians Plot No.36, Hill Colony, Vijayawada Highway Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad Rep. by its Proprietor Smt. K. Ratna Vasanthi … Petitioner And Asst. Commissioner (CT), Audit Saroornagar Division, Manoranjan Complex M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad and others … Respondents
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.34090 OF 2011
ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur)
This writ petition has been filed against an order dt.15.12.2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Audit, Saroornagar Division, Hyderabad. The assessment order was passed under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
2. The order clearly mentions that it is appealable before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division. When asked why a statutory appeal has not been filed, learned counsel for the petitioner says that because in this writ petition, which is coming up for the first time, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division is made a party. We find from the Writ Petition that the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) is not a party. It is only the Deputy Commissioner (CT) who is a party, and not the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT).
3. Since there is an alternative and equally efficacious remedy available to the petitioner by way of a statutory appeal, we decline to entertain this writ petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to file an appeal in accordance with law.
4. The writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous application is also disposed of.
__________________ MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ
_______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J
27-12-2011
bnr
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition where an equally efficacious statutory appeal is available.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Aditya Engineers and Technicians Rep. by Smt. K. Ratna Vasanthi
Asst. Commissioner (CT), Audit Saroornagar Division and others
Madan B. Lokur
Sanjay Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
