Allowed

M/s. Venkata Sal Durga Traders, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC20 Mar 2017WP/9780/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petition No. 9780 of 2017, the Benches of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the petitioner's writ petition against a revisional assessment order under the Andhra Pradesh VAT Act. The Court held that the lower authority failed to consider the binding precedent K.G.F. Cottons (P) Ltd. regarding tax on husk, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in light of that decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to the 2nd respondent for consideration in light of K.G.F. Cottons (P) Ltd.

M/s. Venkata Sal Durga Traders, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Income Tax | 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. 9780 of 2017

¶5

ORDER: (Per VRS,J)

¶6

Aggrieved by the revision of assessment passed under Section 32(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, the assessee has come up with the above writ petition.

¶7

Heard Mr. M.V.J.K. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. S. Suribabu, learned special standing counsel for Commercial Taxes (AP) appearing for the respondents.

¶8

The contention of the petitioner is that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in K.G.F. Cottons (P) Ltd., Assistant Commissioner (CT)¹ . According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the dealer referred to the decision of this Court dated 04.03.2015 in W.P.No.17972 of 2008, but the 2^nd respondent failed to consider the same.

¶9

It is seen from the impugned order that there is a reference to W.P.No.17972 of 2008. The issue as to whether tax can be levied under Section 4(4) of the Act on husk to the extent it related to the purchase of paddy, is covered by the decision in K.G.F. Cottons (P) Ltd. But, the 2^nd respondent has not taken note of the law laid down

¶10

1 (2015) 81 VST 1

¶11

VRS,J & JUD,,J WP No. 9780 of 2017

¶12

¶13

in the said decision. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the matter has to be remanded back.

¶14

Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the matter remanded back to the 2^nd respondent for consideration of the issue, in the light of the decision of this Court in K.G.F. Cottons (P) Ltd. The 2^nd respondent may pass fresh orders, after taking note of the facts, with reference to the case law indicated above.

¶15

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the

¶16

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

¶17

__________________________
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J

¶18

______________ J. UMA DEVI, J. 20^th March, 2017 cbs

¶19

VRS,J & JUD,,J WP No. 9780 of 2017

¶20

¶21

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN  AND

¶22

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

¶23

Writ Petition No. 9780 of 2017

¶24

(allowed)

¶25

20^th March, 2017

¶26

cbs

M/s. Venkata Sal Durga Traders, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Venkata Sal Durga Traders, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Seeram Padmanabha Jewellers Port Ltd., Vs The Income Tax Officer

M/s. Tejaswi Motors Pvt. Ltd, Vs The State of Telangan

Bhimanathini Shree Tanooja, Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Acn Cable Private Limited Vs The State of Ap

M/s. Sri Annapurna Rice Mill, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kum. Kuruva Latha Prathyusha, Vs The PrI. District Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.