M/S. Progreen Biotech vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Held
The Court held that the issue of whether there was fraud or willful neglect to evade tax involves disputed factual aspects requiring adjudication. It found no violation of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction that would warrant bypassing the statutory appeal remedy.
Facts
The petitioner challenged a penalty order under the AP Value Added Tax Act. The penalty was levied for ineligible input tax credit and under-declaration of output tax, following an assessment order and subsequent remands. The petitioner argued that the penalty provisions were not met as there was no fraud or willful intention to evade tax.
Key Issues
Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition bypassing the statutory appeal remedy when the levy of penalty involves disputed factual aspects regarding intent to evade tax.
Sections Cited
Section 53(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
W.P. No. 11267 of 2019 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)
1) The present Writ Petition came to be filed seeking issuance of a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction, quashing the penalty order in Form VAT 203, dated 04.07.2019, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Vijayawada, for the period September 2014 to November 2016 under A.P. Value Added Tax Act as illegal arbitrary and consequently to set-aside the same. 2) The facts, in issue, are that: i. The Petitioner is said to be a registered dealer under the provisions of A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and Central Sales Tax Act 1906. The Petitioner is engaged in the business of pesticides and bio-products. It is said that the 1st Respondent finalized its Assessment Order, dated 27.04.2018, on two issues, input tax credit in the absence of original tax invoices; and sales returns beyond the period of one year stipulated. Total levy as per the Assessment Order is said to be Rs., 10,29,579/-. The Petitioner claims to have paid a sum of Rs., 2,76,345/- as admitted lia
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.