Telangana High Court
WP/32666/2012 of M/s. Srushti Con-Tech, Vs Commercial Tax Officer - I, on 31 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO Writ Petition No. 32666 of 2012 Dated: 31-12-2012 Between: M/s Srushti Con-Tech, rep. by its Managing Partner J.Madhusudhan Reddy. …Petitioner And Commercial Tax Officer-I, Kadapa Dist. and others.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAOWrit Petition No. 32666 of 2012Dated: 31-12-2012
Between:M/s Srushti Con-Tech, rep. by itsManaging Partner J.Madhusudhan Reddy.
AndCommercial Tax Officer-I,Kadapa Dist. and others.
…Petitioner
…Respondents.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Writ Petition No. 32666 of 2012
Oral order(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram)
Sri G. Narendra Chetty, learned counsel for the petitionerstates that in view of the averments in para 5 of the counter-affidavitfiled by the 1[st] respondent, no adjudication of the grievance in the writpetition may be warranted.
The petitioner is a registered dealer on the rolls of the 1[st]respondent and is a works contractor. In terms of Section 20(1) readwith 23(1) of the AP VAT Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Rulesthereunder, the petitioner a dealer registered under Section 17 of theAct filed its return for the month of March, 2012 on 30-4-2012disclosing an excess VAT credit of Rs.7990,222/- and carried thecredit forward for the months April, May, June, July, and August, 2012. As no discrepancies were noticed, Revenue accepted the self-assessment for the tax period March, 2012. The petitioner howeverfiled a revised return in form VAT 213 for March, 2012 on 24-8-2012disclosing the under declared tax of Rs.7,15,656/- in the original VAT200 return, in terms of Rule 23(6)(a) of the AP VAT Rules and claimedrefund of Rs.72,74,566/-.
The writ petition was filed challenging a demand by therespondents for payment of under declared tax of Rs. 7,15,656/- alongwith interest of Rs.35,784/-, in all Rs.7,51,440/-, for the tax periodMarch 2012 despite the petitioner being entitled for refund of Rs.72,74,566/-. This grievance is the consequence on the notice ofunder declaration of VAT issued in form VAT 307 dated 27-8-2012 andsubsequent endorsement dated 4-10-2012 issued by the Revenue.
In para 5 of the counter-affidavit the 1[st] respondent states thatendorsement to the petitioner’s representation to the 3[rd] respondent on30-8-2012 seeking intervention of the said respondent in the matter,the 3[rd] respondent issued a clarification dated 20-9-2012. As aconsequence of this clarification, the demand set out in the 1[st]respondent’s proceedings dated 27-8-2012 and 4-10-2012 will not be enforced.
In the circumstances above the petitioner has no subsisting grievance. T2he writ petition is disposed of recording the averments in para 5 ofthe 1[st] respondent’s counter-affidavit. No costs.
_________________________
GODA RAGHURAM, J
31[st] December, 2012
GRR
_______________________________
M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J