Dismissed¶43

M/s. Balaji Cosmetique, v. The Commercial Tax officer

Telangana HC18 Aug 2025WP/12381/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court writ petition - sales tax credit (transitional VAT credit) claim under AP VAT Act & Rules 2005 filed beyond limitation; Rule 37(2)(h) AP VAT Rules (10-day claim window, Deputy Commissioner may extend up to 30 days, Form VAT 116 approval within 90 days); mandamus under Article 226; Section 151 CPC application (IA No. 1 of 2006, WPMP No. 15384 of 2006); follows PCH Business v. Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT), W.P. No. 18488 of 2005 = [2006] 144 STC 104 (AP); writ dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

In view of the Division Bench judgment of this High Court in PCH Business (W.P. No. 18488 of 2005), the question raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition stands squarely covered by the said judgment. ¶40

M/s. Balaji Cosmetique, Vs The Commercial Tax… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's claim for sales tax credit under the Andhra Pradesh VAT Act and Rules, 2005, not extended beyond the prescribed period of limitation, could be directed to be considered by the respondents.

¶25

Court's answer

¶40

Ratio / Principle

The present writ petition meets the same fate as the followed Division Bench judgment and is accordingly dismissed in similar terms, with no order as to costs.

¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 by M/s. Balal Cosmetique, Hyderabad (through proprietor Dwaraka Prasad Agarwal), challenging the order dated 28-10-2005 of the then Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, by which its claim for sales tax credit was not extended beyond the prescribed period of limitation under the Andhra Pradesh VAT Act and Rules, 2005, and seeking a mandamus to direct consideration of the claim. Relying on the Division Bench decision in PCH Business v. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (CT), Government of Andhra Pradesh (W.P. No. 18488 of 2005, decided 20.08.2005, [2006] 144 STC 104 (AP)) - wherein Rule 37(2)(h) of the AP VAT Rules, 2005 was construed to allow a sales-tax-credit claim within ten days of commencement of the Act, extendable by the Deputy Commissioner up to thirty days at the outermost, with approval on Form VAT 116 within ninety days, and it was held that no mandamus lies to compel a competent authority to act contrary to law - the Division Bench (per P. Sam Koshy, J., with Suddala Chalapathi Rao, J.) held the question squarely covered and dismissed the writ petition in similar terms, with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions (including IA No. 1 of 2006, WPMP No. 15384 of 2006 under Section 151 CPC) were directed to stand closed.

¶1

[^348s 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

AlNNINAV THtr tr IAI.iTtr tr NITT.] NAV r)tr A I I/:I IQT I'VVO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY At',,tD ii.iE iii-iliuuKAiiLE siii iIJSTICE SUDDALA CiiALAPATHI RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 12381 OF 2006

¶7

Betrveen:

¶8

M/s. Balal Cosmetique, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Rep. by its proprietor Mr Dwaraka Prasad Agarwal.

¶9

...PETITlONER

¶10

AND

¶11

fhe Commercial Tax officer, Basheerbagh Circte, Hyderabad. .:

¶12

2..4he Deputy Cotnmissioner (Gt1, nOios Divibion, HyderabSd.

¶13

3 .CommissionerofCommercialTaxes,AndhraPradesh,Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pieased to tssue a ,vrjt orcier or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of l,'la;rdamus declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondent dt. 2B-10-2005 as ilie!al atb!'trary, dtscr'rrnrnatory and consequently direct the respondents to ccnsrder the clarm o{ the petttioner for Sales Tax Credit and Consider the same in accordance with the provisions of AP VAT Act and Rules. 2005 or any other order oi- orilers as the Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case or else the petitioner herein will be put to great hardship and suffer irrepa ra ble loss.

¶16

l.A. NO: 1OF 2006(WPMP.^{NO:1 5384oF 2006)}

¶17

Petition unde. section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circrumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in^{r;upport of the petition, the High court ma) oe pleased to direct} the respondents to consider^{the claim of the petitionerfor'SaiesTax Credit' and} consider the same^{in accordancewith the provisionsof AP 'AT Act and Rules,} 2005 or any other o-der^{or orders as the Hon'ble courtmay d :emfrt and properin} the circumstances of the^{case and in the interest of justice o elsl?rhe petitioner} herein will be^put to^{great hardship and suffer irreparableloss.}

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI P. KARTHIKRAMANA' REPIIESENTING} SRI S DWARAKANATH

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents:^{SRI T. CHAITANYAKIRAN' AGP} REPRESENTING SPECIAL^{GP FOR THE STATE TAX}

¶20

The Gourt made thr: following:^ORDER

¶21

THE HONOURABLE^{SRJJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE} SUDDALA CHALAPATIII^RAO

¶22

W.P.No.1 2381 0F²⁰⁰⁶

¶23

Q,BDEB,^{(per Hon'bleSri JusticeP.SamKoshy)}

¶24

Heard Mr. P.Karthik^{Ramana, leamed counselrepresenting} N'{r. S.Dwarakanath,^{leamed counselfor the petitionerand} N{r.^{.l'.ChaitanyaKiran, leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader} representittg the^{learned Special Covernment Pleader fbr the State} .l ax firr the respondents. Perused the record'

¶25

l. I'he irtstant is^{the writ petition which hasbeen filed by the} petitioner challenging^{the order dated28 102005 passedby} the then Commercial^{Tax Department,Govemment of Andhra} Pradesh, whereby^{the claim ofthe petitionerfor sales tax creditwas} not extended^{beyond the prescribedperiodof limitationunderthe} provisions of the Andfua^{PradeshVATActand Rules' 2005'}

¶26

Today, when^{the matter is takenup for hearing,the judgment} of the Division^{Bench of this High Court in W'P'No'18488 of 2005} decided on^{2c).08.2005 has beenbrought to tlle notice of this Coun'}

¶27

¶28

We find tha- tlre^judgrnent rendered by the Divisi<,, lench in thc said case of PCH Business vs. The Principal Secrelarry, Revenue Departmenl (CT), Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.,l to have been decided the said issue under almost:irnilar factual background. The Division Bench in the said case fr('nl paragraphs 2 to 5 has held as under:

¶29

"2. The impugned order dated July 28, 2005 cl the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad, re ecting the representation of the petitroner dated July 21 . 2) .)5 la extend the time for submitting ciaim for sales tax credrt is perfectiy in conformity with Rule 37(2)(h) of the rrrdhra Pradesir Value Added Tax Rules 2005. which re;( i as follows

¶30

'h) a claim for sales tax credrl shall be subnri t rd to :he authority^prescribed within ten days from il-3 date rf commencement of the Act The :),rputy lommrssioner may, having regard to the ;ircumstances permit the VAT dealer to ma[:r, the ,:la m after the said ten days but not later thar ihrrtv rjays from the date of commencement of the A( t The approval of the claim for sales tax credtt sl"a I be issued on form VAT 116 not later than ninet\ lays lrom the date of commencement of the Act;

¶31

-fhat a plain reading of the rule suggests thl: the Deputy Commissioner may exercise discretion and )ermit

¶32

'120061^{144 S'rC 104 (AP)}

the VAT^{dealerto makethe claim after the expiry of ten days} of the^{prescribed t me but not later than thirty days fromthe} date of commencement^{of the AndhraPradesh Value Added} Tax Act, 2005 lt rs^{not as if the Deputy Commissioneris} clothed wrth any^{authority to keep on extendlng the time The} mandate enshrined^{in Rule 37(2)(h) of the Rules referred to} herernabove^{ts absolutelyclear' The rule is not susceptible} to any interpretation^{as suggested by the learned counsel for} the^petitioner.

¶37

Sri C.V. Nagarjuna^{Reddy, learned counsel for the} petitioner, however,^{placedsome orders beforeus wherein} the Deputy^{Commissioner (CT),Charminar Division, appears} to have extended^{time for filing form VAT 115 up to May 20'} 2OO5 which^{may as suggested by the learned counsel for the} petitioner runs contrary to^{the rules but the same cannotbe} taken as a^{precedent and we cannot compel the competent} authorities to^{act contrary to law. No writ of mandamuslies} compelling^{the competent authorityto act contraryto law'}

¶38

For the^{aforesaid reasons,we are not inclined to grant any} order whatsoever^{to the petitionerin this writ petitionlt is} entirely a different^{matter if those proceedings that are} presented before us^{by the learned counsel for the petitioner} are rmpugned.^{The said orders upon which reliance is placed} by the^{learned counselfor thePetltloner are notimpugned} before us^{ln any one of the wrrt petitions}

¶39

,+, ln vicw ol the afbresaid .iudicial^{pronouncement by the}

¶40

Division Bench^{of this High Court itself, we are of the considered} opinion that^{the question raisedby the petitioner in the present writ} petition stands^{squarely coveredby the said judgment'}

¶41

¶42

In view of the same, the present writ petition also meets the

¶43

same fate and is accordingly dismissed in similar terms. Ihere shall

¶44

be no order as to costs

¶45

Conscq'-rently, rniscellaneous petitions pending. I lnr. shrll

¶46

stand closed

¶47

SD/GOWRI SHANKAR JTANT REGISTRAR

¶48

//TRUE COPY'

¶49

{SECTION OFFICER

¶50

To, 1. One CC to Sri S. Dwarakanath, Advocate [OPUC] i: iil CC io rne Special^{GP for State Tax, High Court for th3 State of} Telangana, at HYderabad[OUT] 3. Two CD CoPies TJ TK a

HIGH COURT

DATED:1810812A25

ORDER

WP.No.12381 of 2006

/a _ ::.-
o
:)
19 iCT 201 ;:1
L
}. ,-/
Dr \ >,7
i [C!'- 2'

¶56

DTSMISSING THE WRIT PETITION