Allowed

M/s. Sidhartha Construction and Engineering Works, v. The Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

Telangana HC8 Mar 2017WP/7793/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court set aside an assessment order under the Andhra Pradesh VAT Act, finding that rejecting a plea for adjournment due to an auditor's marriage violated natural justice principles, and directed a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned assessment order set aside; petitioner directed to file objections; personal hearing fixed for 22.03.2017.

M/s. Sidhartha Construction and Engineering Works… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 7793 of 2017

¶5

ORDER: (Per VRS,J)

¶6

Aggrieved by an order of assessment passed under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 for the period 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, the dealer has come up with the present writ petition, on the short ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶7

Heard Mr. G. Narendra Chetty, learned counsel for the

¶8

petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned special standing counsel for Commercial Taxes (AP), takes notice for the respondents.

¶10

It appears that the petitioner wanted time, on the ground that the marriage of their auditor was fixed on 09.02.2017 and that, therefore, their authorized representative may not be able to appear till 15.02.2017. This request was rejected and an order of assessment passed.

¶11

Though there is some justification for the frustration on the part of the Assessing Officer that led to the rejection of the request for adjournment, we are of the considered view that in matters of this nature, a pragmatic approach and not a pedantic approach is what is required. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned

¶12

VRS,J & JUD,,J WP No. 7793 of 2017

¶13

¶14

order is set aside. The petitioner shall file their objections on or before 20.03.2017. The Officer shall take up the matter for personal hearing on 22.03.2017, on which date, the petitioner shall produce all the records and documents and ensure that their authorized representative appears before the Officer. Thereupon, the 1^st respondent may pass orders afresh.

¶15

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the

¶16

writ petition shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶17

__________________________
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J
______________
J. UMA DEVI, J.
8 th March, 2017
Note: Issue C.C. today.
(b/o)
cbs

¶18

VRS,J & JUD,,J WP No. 7793 of 2017

¶19

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN  AND

¶21

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

¶22

Writ Petition No. 7793 of 2017

¶23

(allowed)

¶24

8^th March, 2017

¶25

cbs

M/s. Sidhartha Construction and Engineering Works, v. The Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Sidhartha Construction and Engineering Works, v. The Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

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.Nri Academy of Sciences Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/s. Sai Pavan Modern Rice Mill, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Gayatri Timber (P) Ltd, Vs Union of India

M/s. Kalpatharuvu Traders, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer - I, Proddatur, Vasanthapeta

M/s. Kalpatharuvu Traders, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer - I

J.Amarnath, Vs High Court of Judicature for the