M/S. Sri Sai Steels vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Held
The Court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of non-disclosure of material facts. The Court noted that the petitioners' counsel's submissions regarding previous legal proceedings (a dismissed appeal and a pending writ petition) contradicted the averment in paragraph 13 of the writ petition, which stated that no other writ or legal proceedings had been filed. This failure to disclose material facts rendered the petition liable for dismissal. However, the Court granted the petitioners liberty to file a fresh petition, provided they disclose all material facts accurately. No costs were awarded.
Facts
The petitioners, M/s. Sri Sai Steels and others, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 27.09.2023 and an order for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The petitioners' counsel submitted that a previous show cause notice dated 24.02.2021 was issued for the same assessment year, and an order was passed against which an appeal was dismissed. A writ petition challenging that appellate order was allegedly pending before the Court. However, the petitioners' counsel could not substantiate these claims with averments in the present writ petition. Furthermore, paragraph 13 of the writ petition stated that the petitioners had not filed any other writ or legal proceedings, which was contradicted by the submissions made.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the petitioner's non-disclosure of material facts regarding previous legal proceedings concerning the same assessment year (2017-18). Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner's counsel initially alluded to prior proceedings, including a dismissed appeal and a pending writ petition, but failed to provide specific averments in the current writ petition to support these claims. The petitioner's counsel could not point out such averments when questioned by the Court. Revenue/State's Argument: The respondents' argument is not recorded in the judgment. However, the Court's decision implies that the non-disclosure of material facts was a significant issue.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
APHC010093412024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR [ 3464 ] PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 5043 OF 2024 Between: M/S. SRI SAI STEELS, AND OTHERS ...PETITIONER(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. SATYA SAI KRISHNA SISTLA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following:
Sri Challa Viswanath, learned counsel, representing Sri Satya Sai Krishna Sistla, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present petition pertains to the impugned notice dated 27.09.2023 as also the order passed for the Assessment Year 2017-18. He submits that for the said assessment year previously also the show cause notice dated 24.02.2021 was given. He further submits that the order for assessment was also passed previously against which the petitioners’ appeal was dismissed and challenging the said appellate order, writ petition was filed by the petitioners which is pend
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.