WP/32951/2010 of M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on 30 December 2010

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAOAND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

WRIT PETITION Nos.32949, 32951 and 32963 of 2010Dated:30.12.2010

Between:M/s.Bharat Heavy Electrials Limited,(A Govt. of India Undertaking), PowerSector-Southern Region, RayalaseemaThermal Power Project, Stage III, V.V.ReddyNagar and Post, Kadapa District, rep., byIts Dy.General Manager (Finance)Mr.C.S.Ravi Shankar .. Petitioner AndThe Assistant Commissioner of CommercialTaxes, Office of the Deputy Commissioner (CT),D.No.1/499, opp. To YSR Guest House,Smith Road, Kadapa and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAOAND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANWRIT PETITION Nos.32949, 32951 and 32963 of 2010

COMMON ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S. Rao)

M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), a Government ofIndia Undertaking, is a registered Value Added Tax (VAT) dealer on therolls of the second respondent, namely, Commercial Tax Officer, Kadapa-II Circle. The first respondent is the jurisdictional authority prescribed toundertake assessment for the years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. The BHEL produced nil tax returns,presumably, for the reason that erection, commissioning and testing isnot exercisable to VAT as it does not involve transfer of material. Therefore, it filed refund applications in Form VAT 510 in so far as TDSamount deducted by the Andhra Pradesh Power Generation CorporationLimited (APGENCO) is concerned.

By communication No.Tin 28800297602, dated 30.06.2010, thefirst respondent advised the petitioner to furnish details of the maincontractor on whose behalf the work was executed together with detailsof the remittances and disposal of Form VAT 501-A certificates. It is thecase of the petitioner that, in response thereto, the petitioner sent acommunication, being No.BHEL:PSSR:RTPP: MUD:AP VAT:750 A,dated 07.07.2010, submitting such clarifications. Even thereafter, it isalleged that the first respondent did not bestow prompt attention to passorders determining the quantum of refund of VAT. Therefore, these writpetitions are filed.

As the prayer made is for a mandamus to direct the respondents torefund amounts and, admittedly, as of now, there is no determination ofthe refund amount, we are not inclined to pass the order, as prayed for.

The Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes submits that, as andwhen the petitioner submits the necessary information called for, theapplications will be processed. In that view of the matter, instead ofkeeping the matters pending, we dispose them of in the followingmanner.

(i) The petitioner is given two weeks time from today toplace all the material, including the material calledfor by the first respondent in support of their claim forrefund. As and when such material is submitted,within four month thereafter, the first respondent shallconsider refunding the VAT amount and passappropriate orders determining the amount of refundunder Section 38(1)(b) read with Section 40 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.(ii)Needless to mention, if so requested, the first respondentshall give an opportunity of personal hearing to thepetitioner.

The writ petitioners are, accordingly, disposed of. There shall beno order as to costs.

_____________

V.V.S. RAO, J

___________________________

RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J

30.12.2010

Note:- Dispatch copy of

order by 03.01.2011.

(B/o) KH