This court quashed a revisional order dated 19-11-2012 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer. The order was sustained based on a prior Division Bench judgment declaring that declarations under Rule 12 could not be limited to quarterly periods, a position conceded by the respondents.
The impugned revisional order is quashed.
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 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Writ Petition No. 3430 of 2013
Dated: 06-02-2013
Between: M/s Bharathi Industries., rep. by its Proprietrix N.Vijaya. …Petitioner And The Commercial Tax Officer-II, Khammam and another.
…Respondents.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Writ Petition No. 3430 of 2013
Oral order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram)
Heard Sri Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Balaji Varma, learned Special Govt. Pleader for Commercial Taxes for the respondents.
The challenge is to the revisional order dated 19-11-2012 passed by the 2nd respondent for the Assessment Year 2005-06 under the CST Act, 1956. What is alleged is misinterpretation of Rule 12 of the CST R&T Rules, 1957. The contention is that the basis for passing the impugned revisional order is unsustainable in view of the judgment of a learned Division Bench of this Court dated 20-4-2011 in W.P.Nos. 10578 and 10592 of 2011 wherein this Court had declared that a plain reading of Rule 12(10)(a) of the 1957 Rules does not, in any manner, support Revenue’s contention that the declarations are required to be filed for quarterly periods, and cannot be filed for the entire year.
Sri P.Balaji Varma, learned Special Govt. Pleader for Commercial Taxes concedes the position that that is the law, the declaration of principle by this Court is final and has not been agitated in any other proceedings for reconsideration.
In the light of the conceded legal position, the impugned
revisional order cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed.
The writ petition is allowed. But in the circumstances without
costs.
_________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J
6th February, 2013
_______________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J GRR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revisional order based on misinterpretation of Rule 12 of CST R&T Rules is sustainable in light of a prior Division Bench judgment.
Whether the declarations required under Rule 12 must be filed for quarterly periods as contended by the Revenue.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.Nos. 10578 and 10592 of 2011Applied¶10
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s Bharathi Industries.
The Commercial Tax Officer-II, Khammam
Another
GODA RAGHURAM
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
