Dismissed

M/s.Ramakrishna Handloom v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC8 Feb 2017WP/35936/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a dealer challenging VAT assessment order. The court held that questions regarding the classification of goods could only be raised before the Tribunal after exhausting the alternative remedy. Consequently, the petition was dismissed but the petitioner was granted time to appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Time granted to file appeal before the VAT Tribunal, excluding the period from filing writ to order issuance.

M/s.Ramakrishna Handloom Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON’BLE Ms JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI

¶2

Writ Petition No.35936 of 2016

¶3

Order: (per V.Ramasubramanian, J.)

¶4

Aggrieved by an order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vijayawada, confirming the order of assessment, under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, the dealer has come up with the present writ petition.

¶5

Heard Mr. M.Venkatram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned Special Standing Counsel for CT-AP.

¶6

The short question that arose for consideration before the Original as well as the Appellate Authority was as to whether the bandage and cotton gauze cloth manufactured by the petitioner would fall under entry 66 of Schedule-I, entitling the petitioner to claim exemption or whether it would fall under the category of drugs, falling under entry 88 of Schedule-IV of the Act. Having regard to the nature of the goods manufactured by the petitioner, two authorities held against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner should go only before the Tribunal. The above question which was concurrently held against the petitioner by two authorities cannot be agitated before this Court without exhausting the alternative remedy of appeal.

¶7

Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, since the order of the Appellate Authority was

¶8

¶9

passed on 25-7-2016 and the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 08-8-2016, the period from 08-8-2016 up to the date of issue of the copy of the order passed in this writ petition, should be excluded by consent for the purpose of calculating the limitation in filing an appeal before the VAT Tribunal.

¶10

With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. Office is directed to return the original impugned order to enable them to file an appeal. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.

¶11

___________________________ V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J. _______________ J.UMA DEVI, J. 08^th February, 2017. Ak

¶12

¶13

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON’BLE Ms JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI

¶14

Writ Petition No.35936 of 2016 (per VRS, J.)

¶15

08^th February, 2017. (Ak)

M/s.Ramakrishna Handloom v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Ramakrishna Handloom 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Manthena Satyanarxyana Raju Vs the Union of India

M/s. Venkateswara Traders Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)

D.Reshma Sahithi, Vs The State of Telangana, Health, Medical and Family

M/s.Sree Seetharama Bhaktanjaneya Food Processing Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. v.S.Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Vs The State of Telangana

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs M/s. The Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Limited