M/S. Sri Lalitha Construction Products vs. Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)
Held
The Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. This inclination was based on the petitioner's own conduct: approaching the authority for installments, the authority granting the installments, and the petitioner's subsequent failure to comply with the agreed payment schedule. The petitioner, upon sensing the Court's view, sought to withdraw the writ petition. The Court noted that a previous writ petition (WP.Sr.No.45626 of 2023) was at the SR stage and received back by the petitioner without being filed, and that this fact was not mentioned in the current writ affidavit. The Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. No specific issue regarding GST provisions was decided on merits.
Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order or action by the revenue. The petitioner had previously approached the Joint Commissioner (ST), Vizianagaram, by letter dated 15.11.2023, requesting to pay the disputed tax and penalty in installments. The Joint Commissioner accepted this proposal and fixed the installments. However, the petitioner failed to comply with this agreement, not even depositing the first installment. The petitioner also mentioned a previous writ petition (WP.Sr.No.45626 of 2023) that was at the SR stage and received back by the petitioner without being filed, a fact not mentioned in the current writ affidavit.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should entertain a writ petition when the petitioner has approached the authority for installments, had the installments fixed, and then failed to comply with the agreed terms? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner, after arguing at length and upon sensing the Court's inclination not to entertain the writ petition, submitted that they wished to withdraw the writ petition and have it dismissed. Revenue's argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or State. However, the Court's inclination, as expressed before the petitioner sought withdrawal, was based on the petitioner's prior conduct of approaching the authority for installments, the authority granting them, and the petitioner's subsequent non-compliance.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
WRIT PETITION No.32017 OF 2023
ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)
Heard Sri S.Dwarakanath, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax for the respondents.
After arguing at length, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, when we started dictation of the order and expressed our view that in view of the facts on record that the petitioner himself approached the authority vide letter dated 15.11.2023 (P14), requesting to grant installments and was willing to pay the amount of tax and penalty in installments upon which the Joint Commissioner (ST), Vizianagaram accepted the proposal and fixed installments in exercise of the statutory power to fix installments and petitioner not having complied with the same i.e., not even depositing the first installment, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition, submits
2 tha
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.