Allowed

M/s. Aishwarya Civiltech Pvt.Ltd., v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC18 Feb 2014WP/4112/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that no show cause notice was validly served upon the petitioner regarding tax liability. Consequently, the impugned notice was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to be given an opportunity to file objections within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice dated 30.12.2013 is set aside. The petitioner is directed to be given an opportunity to file objections within four weeks, treating the notice as a show cause notice.

M/s. Aishwarya Civiltech Pvt.Ltd., Vs The State of… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.4112 OF 2014

¶3

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ashutosh Mohunta)

¶4

The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice dated 30.12.2013 issued by respondent No.3 vide which the petitioner has been saddled with the liability of works contract under Section 4(7) of Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’) amounting to Rs.1,20,27,455/-.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no notice was served upon the petitioner, as required under Rule 64(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005. He further submits that the notice issued by the respondents was not served upon the owner of the petitioner company, which is situated in the same premises, but in different flats. Learned counsel, however, submits that the petitioner has already paid the entire tax due to the respondents.

¶6

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submits that the service is complete. He further submits that the address of the enterprise and the petitioner are one and the same and the notice was duly served, which was received by the wife of the Managing Director of the petitioner company.

¶7

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that no show cause notice was served upon the petitioner proposing to levy tax under Section 4(7) of the Act.

¶8

In view of the fact that the show cause notice was not served

¶9

upon the petitioner company, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice, dated 30.12.2013, issued by the 3^rd respondent, is set aside and it is directed that the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to file its objections, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, treating the impugned notice as a show cause notice. On receipt of objections, if any, from the petitioner, the same shall be considered by the 3^rd respondent in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

The miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶11

___________________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.

¶12

___________________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.

¶13

18.02.2014 Note:- Furnish C.C. in two days. (B/o) KH

M/s. Aishwarya Civiltech Pvt.Ltd., v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Aishwarya Civiltech Pvt.Ltd., v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

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. Sree Rama Educational Society, Vs Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Seshapeeran Street, Chittor

M/s. Sree Rama Educational Society, Vs Indian Bank

M/s. Janata Seva and Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Vs State Bank of India

Salveru padmarao Vs Salveru Anjaneyulu

Sri v.Vinay Vidyadhar, Vs Sri Alok Rawat

State of Ap Before Stat Ap Hyd Vs M/S Devan Rubber Industries Ltd. v.Wada