Telangana High Court
WP/12352/2004 of Sri Venkatewara Non Ferrous Foundry, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer, on 26 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.12352 OF 2004 Date: 27-12-2005 Sri Venkateswara Non Ferrous Foundry …. Petitioner And The Commercial Tax Officer … Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI AND THE HON’BLE SRI
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 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU
WRIT PETITION NO.12352 OF 2004
Date: 27-12-2005
Sri Venkateswara Non Ferrous Foundry …. Petitioner
And
The Commercial Tax Officer … Respondent
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU
WRIT PETITION NO.12352 OF 2004
O R D E R (Per the Hon’ble Sri Bilal Nazki, J):
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Counter has been filed. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased certainraw material. Subsequently, an assessment was made on 13-03-2003, and as aresult of this assessment, he paid tax. However, the Government came up withG.O.Ms.No.1133 Revenue (CT-II) Department, dated 14-11-2003. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to refund of the amount paid by him in terms of the said G.O.,though the same was issued on 14-11-2003, but was given retrospective effect from13-08-1998.
The respondent in his counter, having denied these submissions, however, hassubmitted that the petitioner never made any representation to them stating that thebenefit accruing under G.O.Ms.No.1133 should be given to him.
In this view of the matter, we dispose of this writ petition allowing the petitioner tomake a representation before the respondent within a period of two weeks. Therespondent may pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, on therepresentation of the petitioner within a period of four weeks after the representationis presented before him. No order as to costs.
_____________________
(Bilal Nazki, J)
27[th] December, 2005
___________________
(C.V.Ramulu, J)
vrn