Remanded

Sekhar Aqua Industries, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC6 Sept 2016WP/28091/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, acting via the Chief Justice, disposed of a writ petition challenging an assessment order on loose water sales. Relying on the learned Special Standing Counsel's submission, the Court remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh, reasoned order within two months after affording the petitioner a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned assessment order set aside and remanded to the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh, reasoned order within two months after a personal hearing to the petitioner.

Sekhar Aqua Industries, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Telangana HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶4

Writ Petition No.28091 of 2016

¶5

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)

¶6

Heard Sri K.Ismail, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Suri Babu, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes (Andhra Pradesh), and, with their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. Sri K.Ismail, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that by oversight both the assessment order dt.08.02.2016, and the consequential order of penalty dt.28.06.2016, are subjected to challenge in this writ petition; a separate writ petition would be filed in so far as the order of penalty is concerned; and it would suffice if this Court were to examine the validity of the assessment order in the present writ proceedings.

¶7

By the assessment order dt.08.02.2016, the respondents subjected, among others, loose water sales for Rs.19,31,278/- to tax under the AP VAT Act. Sri K.Ismail, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that it is only packaged drinking water, and not loose water, which is taxable under Item 126 of Schedule IV and the Assessing Authority lacks jurisdiction to levy tax on the sale of loose water. On the other hand, Sri S.Suri Babu, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes would submit that sale of loose water is, in fact, the sale of water through 20 litres cans; the petitioner was seeking to evade payment of tax under the A.P Vat Act without having the 20 litres cans sealed, though the cans carried the logo of the petitioner; and it is in such circumstances that the turnover of

¶8

¶9

Rs.19,31,278/- was being subjected to tax under the Act. While the assessment order no doubt refers to the fact that the petitioner was supplying water in 20 litres pet cans as per the requirements of the customers, it makes no reference to the petitioner having resorted to such means only to avoid payment of tax under the Act.

¶10

Sri S.Suri Babu, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, would fairly state that the Assessing Authority could have passed a detailed assessment order dealing with all these aspects. He requests that, instead of keeping the Writ Petition pending on the file of this Court, the Assessing Authority may be directed to pass a reasoned order afresh.

¶11

In view of this submission of the learned Special Standing Counsel, we consider it appropriate to set aside the impugned assessment order, and remand the matter to the Assessing Authority, who, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of a personal hearing, shall pass a fresh assessment order, assigning reasons therefor, within two(2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶12

The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶13

________________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ

¶14

___________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶15

Dt: 06.09.2016 Scs/Murthy

Sekhar Aqua Industries, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sekhar Aqua Industries, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

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

M/s. Chandrasekhara Cashew Industries, Vs Commercial Tax Officer, Kasibugga Circle, Vizianagaram.

M/s. Sitaram Spinners (P) Ltd, Vs Vidyut Ombudsman for the State of Telangana

Pankaj Woven Sacks (P) Limited, Vs The Superintending Engineer

M/s. Sri Sai Ram Decordicators, Sy. No. 157/1 Vs The Deputy Commissioner (Ct), (Fac)

M/s. Sri Sai Ram Decordicators, Vs The Deputy Commissioner (Ct), (Fac)

The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commission