BharatTaxGST

Blue Star Enterprises And Surgicals vs. The State Of Ap

Original PDF →
WP/16519/2023HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01032220202323 July 2024Bench: R RAGHUNANDAN RAO,HARINATH.N7 pages
For Petitioner: SRI VENKATRAM REDDY MANTURFor Respondent: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
■f IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY. THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 16519 OF 2023 Between: M/s. BLUE STAR ENTERPRISES AND SURGICALS 1®' Floor, Park Road, Vijayawada-1. Andhra Pradesh, its Partner, Mr.D.Praveen Kumar, S/o. Gandhi D.No.11-31-25, Represented by ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT-II) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi District, AP. 2. The Commercial Tax Officer (FAC), Park Road Circle, No-I division, Vijayawada. 3. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-1, Park Road Circle, Vijayawada. ...RESPONDENTS Guntur 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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus order or direction declaring the action of the 2 exparte CST assessment order dated 26-02-2021 any other appropriate writ or Respondent in passing or nd without serving any notice or order and the order copy is downloaded from the Commercial Tax website, for the tax period 2016-17 under CST Act, 1956. as arbitrary and in violation of Principles of contrary to the provisions of the Act Natural Justice and consequently set aside the exparte CST assessment proceedings dated 26-02-2021. lA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 receive the counter copies on record by allowing the leave petition in the above writ petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 suspend the operation of CST assessment proceedings of 2 Respondent dated 26-02-2021 passed exparte for the tax period 2016-17 under CST Act, 1956, including demand notice of the 3'”'^ Respondent dated 23.05.2023 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition as otherwise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

The Court made the following: ORDER nd

APHC010322202023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) if Bfe [3488] WEDNE AY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 16519/2023 Between: ...PETITIONER Blue Star Enterprises And Surgicals AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1 .GP FOR COMMERCIALTAX The Court made the following or6er:(perHon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner was a dealer dealing with drugs and medicines and was the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Park Road Circle, registered on Vijayawada. The petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present challenging the proceedings of the 2"^^ respondent dated 26.02,2021, in which the order for the assessment year 2016-17 was passed Writ Petition and balance tax of Rs. 10,43,912/- was demanded from the petitioner.

RRR,J&HNJ

2.

It is the case of the petitioner that he had not received the show cause notice and was not given an opportunity of hearing before the impugned order of assessment was passed. Sri Venkatram Reddy Mantur, learned counsel for petitioner would rely upon the following judgments; 1) Kesar Enterprises Limited \/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others 1 2) S. Lalaiah & Co. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner (CTf 3) Refex Energy Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) and Others^ 4) Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital and Dental College Vs. Union of India and Others'^ 5) M M Engineers (P) Ltd Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Mettupalayam Road Circle^ to contend that any order passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected persons would violate the principles of natural justice and as such would have to be set aside.

3.

The impugned proceedings dated 26.02.2021 state that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 07.11.2017 and was served on him on the same day. Subsequently, further show cause notices dated 09.03.2020 and 31.12.2020 were sent to the petitioner and were received on '(2011) 13 see 733 ^ (2007) volume 45 APSTJ 116 ^ (2024) volume 123 GSTR 118 “ (2014) 13 see 506 ^ 2013 Lawsuit(N'lad) 603

% RRR, J & HN, J

18.03.

2020 and 23.01.2021 against these show respectively. As no written objections cause notices, the 2'^^ were filed respondent completed the given in the show cause notices. The counter affidavit, had produced the show assessment on the basis of the details ai 2 respondent, along with the notices and also the cause receipt of the show 2020. In the light of these documents, cause notices were served on the petitioner and In such circumstances, it cannot be held acknowledgment cards showing cause notices on 09.03.2020 and 31.12. it must be held that the show no reply was filed by the petitioner. that the impugned proceedings hearing to the petitioner. were passed without giving an opportunity of 4- A further contention has been has not been served request for furnishing such a 24.06.2023 for which there has been raised that the copy of the order passed and that the copy had also been made on the petitioner on no reply till today. on the petitioner after it had been 5- The learned counsel for petitioner would would still have given to the petitioner. submit that the petitioner an opportunity for filing an appeal if the said order copy IS 6. nd The 2 respondent has also produced acknowledgment copy by a representative of the of the receipt of the said order petitioner on 05.04.2021. The acknowledgment receipt bears the enterprise and is signed by one Ms. N.L. Prasanna. In the ci contention aiso cannot be accepted by this Court. sea! of the petitioner’s circumstances, this j

<.

RRRJ&HN,J In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving it to the petitioner to avail of his remedies, if any, under law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand 7. open closed. K.J. RAJA BABU ASSISTANT^PGISTRAR //// SECTION OFFICER To,

1.

One CC to Sri Venkatram Reddy Mantur, Advocate [OPUC]

2.

Two CCs to GP for Commercial Tax, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

3.

Three CD Copies ERK PRK

ERK high court DATED;24/07/2024 / / ! ORDER OF ANOfy^^ 21 JAN 2C25 % i WP.No.16519 of 2023 X i I o toA? Curreni Section ^ CP patch DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

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.