M/S. Progressive Constructions Limited vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO AND HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI
W.P.No.20850 of 2020
ORDER: (per UDPR,J)
Heard Sri M.V.K.Murthy, learned counsel representing Mr.Battu Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax representing on behalf of respondents.
At the outset, the submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader is that the impugned notice dated 21.10.2020 is not a demand notice as the contents of the said notice would depict that “On verification of GST Records it is noticed that the Taxpayers have claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) in excess in GSTR- 3Bs than available to them through GSTR- as detailed below in a tabular form and the Taxpayers are requested to produce documentary evidences, if any, in support of the discrepancies”. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would thus submit that the said notice shall not be treated as a demand notice and in that context, the preset writ petition is a prematured one.
Having found force in the submissions of learned Assistant Government Pleader, this writ petition is dismissed, however giving liberty to the writ petitioner to agitate the cause as and when cause of action arises.
2
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J _______________ J.UMA DEVI, J 07.01.2021 VSL
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.