M/S. Sree Gamini Textiles PVT LTD., Tanuku vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Tanuku.
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
1
APHC010398832006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3529] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 14240/2006 Between:
M/S. SREE GAMINI TEXTILES PVT LTD., TANUKU,, POST BOX NO.22, CHIVATAM ROAD, NEAR BELLAM MARKET, TANUKU-534 211 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.GAMINI VENKATA SUBBA RAO.
...PETITIONER AND 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER TANUKU, Circle.II, Tanuku.
...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue an appropriate Writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order dated 15-09-2005 passed by the respondent in Form VAT-126, in so far as it relates to rejection sales tax credit claim for an amount of Rs.2,08,356/- as illegal, unjustified and contrary to the provisions Section 13 (2)(a) of AP VAT Act, 2005 and rule 37 of the AP VAT Rules , 2005 and pass such other order or orders. IA NO: 1 OF 2006(WPMP 17734 OF 2006 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to expedite the hearing of the writ petition at an early date and pass such other order or orders.
2
Counsel for the Petitioner:
SRINIVASA RAO KUDUPUDI Counsel for the Respondent:
GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
SURIBABU S(SPL SC FOR CT AP) The Court made the following:
3
The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
The petitioner, which was in the business of manufacture of cotton yarn and sale of such yarn was registered under the A.P.General Sales Tax Act. At the time, when the said Act has been replaced by the A.P.Value Added Tax Act, 2005, the petitioner claimed to be in possession of certain stock.
The A.P VAT Act, as part of the transitional provisions, permitted dealers, who had paid tax on the goods available with them, at the time of the A.P.VAT Act coming in to force, the transition of the said tax from the A.P.GST Act to A.P VAT Act.
Taking the benefit of this provision, the petitioner had initially filed an application in Form VAT-115 on 16.04.2005, contending that he was entitled to a tax credit for an amount of Rs.2,40,196/-, which should be allowed. This contention was initially rejected by the Commercial Tax officer, who restricted the sale tax credit, which is Rs.2,08,128/-. The petitioner had objected to the said restriction and sought, the input tax credit in respect of the closing stock as on 31.03.2005 to the full extent of Rs.2,40,196/-.
The Commercial Tax Officer, after verifying the records, had stated, in a fresh Form VAT-117, dated 30.08.2005, that the claim of the petitioner for Sales Tax credit was restricted to Rs.31,840/- only. In reply to this proposal, the petitioner herein, again submitted a letter dated 10.09.2005, restricting his claim for input tax credit to Rs.41,166/-. The Commercial Tax Officer, after considering the said request, issued a fresh VAT-126 Form on 15.09.2005, confirming the sales tax credit claim of the petitioner only to an amount of Rs.31,840/-.
Aggrieved by this restriction, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.
4
In reply, the Commercial Tax Officer, Tanuku, filed a counter-affidavit setting out the reason why the claim of the petitioner was restricted to Rs.31,840/-.
The sum and substance of the contention was that the petitioner had calculated the tax amount, that should be credited to it at the rate of Rs.41,166/- on the ground that he had opening stock of 117278 KGs. However, the actual opening stock of the petitioner was 76998 KGs of Cotton and the sales tax relief that could be given to the petitioner would have to be calculated on that basis and comes to Rs.31,840/- only.
Sri B.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently disputes these figures.
The writ petition came to be filed in the year, 2006 and it would be difficult to ascertain the actual facts available as on that date. Further, this Court, while exercising juri iction under Article 226 of the constitution, would not be in a position to ascertain such disputed facts.
In the circumstances, the said Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed.
_______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
________________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J SSA 09.02.2026
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.