Allowed

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

Telangana HC21 Mar 2017WP/9818/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed a writ petition challenging a revision of assessment under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The High Court held that the limitation officer failed to apply the decision in K.G.F. Cottons (P) Ltd., regarding tax on husk. The order was set aside and remanded.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent to pass fresh orders.

M/s. Venkata Sai Durga Traders, Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | 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. 9818 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. 9818 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. 21^st March, 2017 cbs

¶19

VRS,J & JUD,,J WP No. 9818 of 2017

¶20

¶21