M/S. Nagendra Vara Prasad Traders vs. Prl.Secy., Revenue (CT) Dept., State Of A.P.

Held

The Court held that while the issue of notional input tax credit was raised by the petitioner, the availability of a second appeal before the A.P.V.A.T. Appellate Tribunal, which can consider both facts and law, meant that the petitioner should not be allowed to bypass this statutory remedy. The Court found no reason to entertain the writ petition when a more appropriate appellate forum exists. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed, leaving it open for the petitioner to challenge the impugned order before the Tribunal. The Court directed the registry to return the original impugned order to the petitioner to facilitate the filing of the second appeal. The Court also suggested that the Tribunal may take a lenient view in condoning any delay in filing the appeal, provided it is filed within the condonable period.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Nagendra Vara Prasad Traders, a TOT Dealer, is challenging an order of assessment passed on December 31, 2016, for the period January 2012 to June 2014 under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The assessment order determined a turnover excess and a consequent short payment of tax amounting to Rs. 2,86,851/-. The petitioner filed a first appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, which was dismissed on January 5, 2018. Despite the availability of a further statutory appeal to the A.P.V.A.T. Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court, contending that the Appellate Authority erred in law by holding that there was no provision for allowing notional input tax credit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority committed an error in law by holding that there is no provision for allowing notional input tax credit, thereby making the impugned order challengeable by way of a writ petition, despite the availability of a second appeal? The petitioner argued that the charging section of the Act makes tax liability subject to input tax credit, and the Appellate Authority's decision on notional input tax credit constituted an apparent error in law, justifying a writ intervention. The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.