Dismissed

M/S. Binjusaria Extractions Ltd., v. State of A.P.

Telangana HC1 Sept 2022TREVC/49/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tax revision cases against orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. Counsel stated that the petitioner had opted for the One Time Settlement scheme under Government orders of 2022 and sought withdrawal of the revisions. The court dismissed the tax revision cases as withdrawn, closing pending miscellaneous applications, with no order as to costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S. Binjusaria Extractions Ltd., Vs State of A.P. — GST and Indirect Tax | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN And

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

TAX REVISION CASE NO:3 29and 49 OF 2011

¶8

T.R.C. No. 3 of 2011

¶9

Tax Revision case Under section 22 (1) of the Andhra pradesh Generar sales Tax Act, 1957 to revise the order of the sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in T.A. No. 466 of 2oo4, dated 15-02-20.10 preferred against the order of the Deputy commissioner (cr) charminar Division, Hyderabad dated 12-03-2004 proceedings No. 1040/2000-0.1/CST Act 1956 .

¶10

Between:

¶11

tVl/s. Binjusaria Extractions Ltd., 19-2-226, Miralam Tank Road, Hyderabad-S0O 064, Rep. by its Director, Mr. Ravinder Kedia. ...pglftOrueR AND

¶12

State.of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its State Representative, before Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

TRC NO: 29 oF 201t

¶15

Tax Revision case Under Section 22 (1) of the Andhra pradesh Generar Sales Tax Act, 1957 to revise the order of the sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in T.A. No. 612 of 2004, dated 02-02-2010 preferred against the order of the Deputy commissioner (cr) charminar Division, Hyderabad dated 3'l-03-2004 G.l. No. 1040/2000-0i/ApcST

¶16

Between:

¶17

IWS. Binjusaria Extractions Ltd., 19-2-226, Miralarn Tank Road, Hyderabad-50O 064, rep.by its Director, Mr. Ravinder Kedia.

¶18

...PETITIONER

¶19

AND

¶20

State of Andhra Pradesh , Rep. by its State Representative, before Sales Tax Appellate Tdbunal Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶21

...RESPONDENT

¶22

T.R.C.No. 49 of 2011

¶23

Tax Revision Case Under Section 22 (1) ot the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act,^'1957 to revise the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in T.A. No. 339 of 2004, dated 15-02-2010 prefened against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (CT) Charminar Division, Hyderabad dated 17-03-2004 in G.l. No. 1O40|2OOO-O1l(APGST )

¶24

Between:

¶25

IWS. Binjusaria Extractions Ltd., 19-2-226, Miralam Tank Road, Hyderabad-500 064, rep.by its Director. Mr. Ravinder Kedia.

¶26

...PETITIONER

¶27

AND

¶28

State of Andhra Pradesh , Rep. by its State Representative, before Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶29

...RESPONDENT

¶30

Counsel for Petitioner in all Cases : SRl. BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY

¶31

Counsel for Respondent in all cases : SRI K. RAJI REDDY

¶32

SC FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶33

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶34

THE HON 'BLE^{THECHIEFJUSTICEUJJALBHUYAN} AND

¶35

THE HON'BLE SRI JUS^{TICE C.V.BHASKARREDDY}

¶36

TAX REVISION CASES^{Nos.329 and 49 of2OlL}

¶37

COMMON ORDER: (Per the Hon'bLe ttle CltLeI Justice^{Ujj@l Bhugon)}

¶38

Heard Mr. Bhaskar^{Reddy Vemireddy,learned} counsel for the^{petitioner and Mr. K.Raji Reddy,learned} Senior Standing^{Counselfor CommercialTax appearing for} the respondent.

¶39

t earned counsel for the^{petitioner submits,on} instruction, that^{petitioner has opted for One Time} Settlement^{(OTS)scheme introducedby the Government of} Telangana under G.O.Ms.No'45,^{dated 09'05} '2022,^and G.O.Ms.No.6 1, dated^{25.06.2022. Therefore, petitioner} seeks withdrawal^{of the tax revision cases'}

¶40

In view of the^{above,tax revision cases are dismissed}

on thdrau,al.

Miscellaneous applications cending, if any, shall

¶45

stand closed. However, there shall ce no order as to costs.

¶46

SD/.B.S.CHIRAftJEEV! JOINTNEdATRAR //TRUE CoPYtt L^ll'----- SECTION OFFICER

¶47

¶48

The Telangana Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, at Hyderabad.(with record)

¶49

The Deputy Commissioner (CT) Charminar Division, Hyderabad.

¶50

One CC to SRI BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRl. K. RAJI REDY, SC for Conrmercial Tax , [OPUC]

¶51

Two CD Copies

¶52

One Spare Copy

¶53

bs 4'

¶54

HIGH COURT

¶55

DATED:01 10912022

¶56

COMMON ORDER & *o.3, 29 and 49 of 2011

¶57

I 2 0 ltliju ZBz
'i\ _ '-. : L :-,'

¶58

DISMISSING TT{E TAX REVISION CASES AS WITT{DIIAWN.

¶59

M
1/ ) ula,

M/S. Binjusaria Extractions Ltd., v. State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S. Binjusaria Extractions Ltd., v. State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. L. Madhusudhan Rao and another Vs State Bank of India and another

M/s. National Academy of Construction Vs Hindustan Engineers Syndicate

Smt.v.Vedavathi, Hyderabad and 2 Others Vs the Dist.Collector, R.R.District and 3 Others

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Hyd.( Now Tsrtc) Vs M. Ashalu

M/s. Ace Tyres Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner and 2 others

M/S. Binjusaria Extractions Ltd., Vs State of A.P.