M/S. Lakshmi Constructions vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Krishna Lanka

The petitioner, though he had paid taxes under Section 5 G of the AP GST Act, could not complete the construction of the buildings and further construction went on in the years 2005-06 & 2006-07. The petitioner was also receiving payments from the Government 4. agencies for the works executed by him over this period. The Assessing Authority, for the assessment years 2005-06 & 2006-07 sought to levy tax on the receipt of consideration paid by the Government agencies to the petitioner in this period. This proposed assessment was resisted by the petitioner, who contended that he had already paid the tax due on the contracts by way of compensation under Section 5 G and levying further tax under the AP VAT Act would amount to double taxation on the same turnover. This contention of the petitioner was rejected by the Assessing Officer for both the assessment years and the assessing orders, dated 14.03.2008, were issued in relation to ' T 3 RRR, J & HN, J V\/.P.No.3398of2009 . r- the assessing years 2005-06 & 2006-07. The petitioner had approached the Territorial Deputy Commissioner for revision of the said orders of assessment on the ground that the Assessing Authority had over-looked the payment of the tax by the petitioner under Section 5 G of the AP GST Act. The Territorial Deputy Commissioner, by an order dated 29.09.2008, had rejected the application of the petitioner for revision on the ground that the Territorial Deputy Commissioner can invoke his revisional powers only when there is prejudice to revenue.

The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said assessment orders. dated 14.03.2008, has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition.

Sri D. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the levy of Value Added Tax for the periods 2005-06 & 2006-07 on turn-over which had already been taxed would amount to double taxation and change in the taxation regime cannot result in such double taxation.

The Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax would contend that in view of the enactment of the AP VAT Act, the provisions of the VAT would have to be applied for the period 2005-06 & 2006-07 and earlier payments made under a composition scheme would not absolve the petitioner from the liability to pay tax under the AP VAT Act.

A perusal of the material and the assessment orders placed before this Court would show that the turn-over relating to execution of the contracts and constructions of the buildings by the petitioner, had already been taxed in the years 2003-04 & 2004-05. The levy of tax was by way of colleting Rs.4/- per square foot of constructed area. In such circumstances, the subsequent receipt of consideration from the Government agencies during the period when AP VAT Act was in force would not in any manner change the fact that the petitioner had already paid the tax due on receipt of consideration from the execution of the four contracts.

In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the levy of tax under the AP VAT Act for the years 2005-06 & 2006-07 would amount double taxation of the same turnover and the same is accordingly, set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order to 11. as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute the Chief Justice Sri Dhiraj Singh Thakur day of October, Two Thousand and Twenty Four. as above. Witness the Hon’ble this Wedne ay, Sixteenth on J. SAROJA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //// ICER SECTI To,