M/S.Velko Infratek Projects Private Limited vs. Deputy Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) - I
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Velko Infratek Projects Private Limited, challenged an assessment order dated November 6, 2021, passed by the Deputy Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) - I, Benz Circle, Vijayawada. This order, for the tax period July 2017 to January 2021, sought to levy tax, penalty, and interest totaling Rs. 8,53,08,838/-. The petitioner contended that the order was illegal, arbitrary, without authority of law, and void ab initio, as it was passed without proper authorization for initiating assessment proceedings. The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner preferred an appeal under an Amnesty Scheme.
Held
The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel submitted that an appeal had been preferred against the impugned order under an Amnesty Scheme during the pendency of the writ petition. In view of the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy, the petitioner no longer wished to prosecute the writ petition and sought to withdraw it. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn as prayed. No orders as to costs were passed. As a sequel, any pending miscellaneous petitions were also closed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the assessment order passed by the first respondent, the Deputy Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) - I, Benz Circle, Vijayawada, for the tax period July 2017 to January 2021, levying tax, penalty, and interest amounting to Rs. 8,53,08,838/-, is illegal, arbitrary, without authority of law, and void ab initio, as it was passed without authorization for initiating assessment proceedings? The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without proper authorization, rendering it illegal, arbitrary, and void. The petitioner did not explicitly state which specific provision of the GST law was violated regarding the authorization for initiating assessment proceedings, but the core of their argument was the lack of lawful authority. The respondents' arguments are not recorded in the provided text, as the matter was dismissed as withdrawn.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
order is passed without authorization for initiating the a^essment proceedings. • c' ' li*'- lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pending disposal of the Writ Petition grant stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.1,95,67,061/- (CGST), Rs.1,95,67,061/- (SGST), penalty (100%)(CGST) Rs.1,95,67,061/-, (SGST) Rs.1,95,67,061/-, Interest (25%) (CGST) Rs.35,20,297/-, (SGST) Rs.35,20,297/-, thus totaling to Rs.8,53,08,838/- (CGST Rs.4,26,54,419/- + SGST Rs.4,26,54,419/-) arising in pursuance of the assessment order passed by the first respondent in Form GST DRC 07 (CGST and SGST), vide CTD OA NO.ZH3711210D32028, dated 06.11.2021, for the tax period July, 2017 to January, 2021. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of collection of the balance disputed tax of Rs.6,94,86,366/- arising in pursuance of the assessment order passed by the first respondent in Form GST DRC 07 (CG$T and SGST), vide CTD OA NO.ZH3711210D32028, dated 06.11.2021, for the tax period July, 2017 to January, 2021, read with the notice dated 28.03.2023 issued by the first respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner(s) : Sri S Suri Babu Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 6 : GP for Commercial Tax
! f Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : Sri Wlanohar Reddy, Standing Counsel Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava The Court made the following:
V IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) WEDNE AY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OP FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT APHC010482632b21 [3464] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH NUNEPALLY WRIT PETITION NO: 29046 OF 2021 Between:
M/s.Velko Infratek Projects Private Limited,, 59-10-2, Gayathri Nagar, Vijayawada - 520 008, represented by its Managing Director, Sri Velagapudi Rama Rao. ?; ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. Deputy Assistant Commissioner State Tax I, Benz Circle, Vijayawada.
Assistant Commissioner State Tax I, Benz Circle, Vijayawada.
Joint Commissioner State Tax, Vijayawada 11 Division, Vijayawada.
Municipal Commissioner, Machilipatnam Municipality, Machilipatnam.
Municipal Commissioner, Tirupathi Municipality, Tirupathi.
The State of Andhra Pradesh, The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Special Principal Secretaiy, Revenue Department, Andhra Pradesh Seciretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a Writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus setting aside the impugned assessment order passed by the first respondent in Form GST DRC 07 (CGST and SGST), vide CTD OA No.ZH371l2l0D32028, dated 06.11.2021, for the tax period July, 2017 to January, 2021, in seeking to levy tax, Rs.8,53,08,838/- (CGST Rs.4,26,54,419/- SGST Rs.4,26,54,419/-) as illegal, arbitrary, without authority of law, and without juri iction, void ab initio, as the order is penalty and interest, amounting to Rs.
passed without apthorization for initiating the assessment proceedings to pass lA NO; 4 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to receive the counter copy on record by allowing the leave petition in the above writ petition and may pass lA NO; 3 OF 2023 , or Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant leave to the petitioner/respondent No.5 in the WP.No.29045 of 2021 to file the counter affidavit in the above writ petition und pass lA NO; 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to pending disposal of the Writ Petition grant stay of CQllection of the disputed tax of Rs.l,95,67,061/- (COST), Rs.l,95,67 061/- (SGST), penalty (100%)(CGST) Rs.1,95,67,061/-, (SGST) Rs.1,95,67,061/- Interest (25%) (CGST) Rs.35,20,297/-, (SGST) Rs.35,20,297/-, thus totaling to Rs.8,53,08,838/- (CGST Rs.4,26,54,419/- + SGST Rs.4,26,54,419 /-) arising in pursuance of the assessment order passed by the first respondent in Form GST DRC 07 (CGST and SGST), vide CTD . N0.2H3711210D32028, dated 06.11.2021, for the tax period July, 2017 Januaiy, 2021, or to pass to lA NO; 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances Stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased tp permit the petitioner to amend the Cause Title as "
Machilipatnam Municipal Corporation, Machilipatnam, represented by its Municipal Commissioner, and "
Tirupathi Municipal Corporation, Tirupathi, represented by its Municipal Commissioner" in place of "
Municipal Commissioner, Machilipatnam Municipality, Machilipatnam,
Municipal Commissioner, Tirupathi Municipality, Tirupathi" in Writ Petition No.29046 of 2021 or to pass
^ EC % y lA NO; 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant stay of collection of the balance disputed tax of Rs.6,94,86,366/- arising in pursuance 6f the assessment Order passed by the first respondent in Form GST DRC 07 (COST and SGST), vide CTD OA NO.ZH3711210t)32028, dated 06.11.2021, for the tax period July, 2017 to January, 2021, read with the notice dated 28.03.2023 issued by the first respondent or to pass s Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. S SURl BABU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following order: Sri S.Suri Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the impugned order, during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner preferred appeal under AMNESTY Scheme. In view of availability of efficacious alternative remedy, the petitioner does not claim for prosecuting this petition, withdrawn. 7 ■.y He further submits that the petition b6 dismissed as 2. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn as prayed. No orders as to costs. As a sequel thereto, rtiiscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. I- g.helanaidu assistant F^GI^RAR /se^T^ONO^lCER //// . To,
One CC to Sri S Suri Babu, Advocate [OPUC]
Two CCs to GP for Commercial Tax .High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
One CC to Sri Manohar Reddy. Standing Counsel [OPUC]
One CC to Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy, Standing Counsel [OPUC]
Two CD Copies cvss
, r HIGH COURT DATED:14/02/2024 ORDER ^ AN CT WP.No.29046 of 2021 g 18 JUL 202‘i m Co ^£spatcvi^ DISMISSING THE W.P. AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.