BharatTaxGST

M/S. Maha Sree Venkata Narsimha Solvent Oils PVT. LTD vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT) Int. And Ltu

Original PDF →
WP/7368/2020HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01013246202007 February 2023Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN4 pages
For Petitioner: MR. S. ADITYA FOR S. DWARAKANATH
AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The petitioner challenged an amendment to the Telangana VAT Act, 2005, which imposed an additional obligation on sellers to have paid tax for input tax credit. The petitioner sought to set aside an assessment order denying input tax credit based on this amendment.

Held

The petitioner informed the court that they had opted for a One Time Settlement scheme to resolve the tax dispute. Consequently, the petitioner sought withdrawal of the writ petition.

Key Issues

The primary issue was the validity of the amendment to Section 13(1) of the Telangana VAT Act, 2005, and its impact on the petitioner's claim for input tax credit. The dispute was settled through a One Time Settlement scheme.

Sections Cited

Section 13(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 7368 OF 2020 [ 33'r1 ] rep. by its Director, Warangal Mandal, Between: M/s. Maha Sree Venkata Narsimha Solvent Oils Pvt. Ltd, Mr. K. Chandrakar Reddy, 33-6-108, Nakalapally, Fort Warangal-506 005. ...PETITIONER Assistant Commissioner (CT) lnt. and LTU, Warangal Division, Warangal. Deputy Commissioner (CT), Warangal Division, Warangal. State of Telangana, rep. by Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (CT- ll) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction- (a) declaring the amendment made to Section 13(1) of the Telangana VAT Act, 2005, by Act 4 of 20'15 in imposing the additional obligation that the seller must have paid the tax charged for the purpose of availing input tax credit, as unreasonable, arbitrary, beyond the control of the Petitioner, violative of Article- 14 of the Constitution of lndia and (b) set-aside the assessment order of the Respondent passed in AO No.21119, dated 5.3.2020 for the tax period April, 2013 to June,2017 in so far as it relates to denial of input tax credit in a sum of Rs.2,61,569/- based on the amended Section 13, by Act 4 of 20 15 with effect from 27 .9.2016. AND 1. 2. 3. lA NOI 10F 2 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstdnces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to orant stay of recovery of disputed tax of ffs.2,61,5691-pursuant to the Irr"r.r"nt order of t1e '1 st Respondent, dated 5.3.2O2O for the tax period April, 2013 to June, 2017 under the VAT Act, 2005, pending disposal of the Writ petition as otherwise the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. S. ADITYA FOR S. DWARAKANATH counsel for the Respondent 'l: SRI V. RAJESHWAR RAO, GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Counsel for the Respondent 2: MR. J. ANIL KUMAR, SC COMMERCIAL TAX

The Court made the following: ORDER t

TH B l\ o.l.

2.

Learned counsel lor the petitioner submits, on instructions, that the petitioner had opted for One Time Settlemenr (O1'S) in terms of rhe scheme announced by Government of Telangana uide G.O.NIs.No.45 dated 09.05.2022 read with G.O.Ms.No.61 dated 25.06.2022 and seeks with&awal of the writ petition since the tax dispute has becn setded.

3.

In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed on withdrawal No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, stand closed. I AND V.P.No.7368 of 2020 ORDER' pet thc Hor'bb lbe Chie/Jzrtice Ultbl BnUa,,) Heard Mr. S.Aditya, leamed counsel for the petitioner; Mr. V.Rajeshrvar Rao, Iearned Govemment pleader for Commercial -Iax represenung respondent No.1; and Mr. J.Anil Kumar, leamed Sanding Counsel, Commercial Tax (Ielangana State) represenring respondent 1. one CC tO SRI. S DW CCs to GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX, Hig ASSISTANISEGISTRAR ,/rRUE coPY,/ secfroHorrrcen .H ARAKANATH Advocate [.'o3H,? to.. tn" state or , K.SRE ERAMA MURTY To, ff,iif[,]?,'^'J, sc FoR coMMERcTAL rAx atH -a. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI I 2. 3. 4. EDS BS

HIGH COURT DATED:0710212023 ORDER WP.No.7368 of 2020 DISMISSTNG THE WRIT PETITION ON WITHDRAWL WITHOLIT COSIS ob \* \ilo.,' + .t/ oo \..4 2 1 rEB 2023 2p \ :{lirnalr;t't ;.2 .\a-=.::=;.. I I

Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.