Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)

M/S. Laser Shaving India Pvt. Ltd., 30, ... vs 1.The Asst. Commissioner (Ct) Ltu, ... on 2 August, 2017

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2017 HYD 72

Author: T.Rajani

Bench: T.Rajani

        

 
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HONBLE SMT. JUSTICE T.RAJANI                 

Writ Petition No.24410 of 2017

02-8-2017 

M/s. Laser Shaving India Pvt. Ltd., 30, Narasapur Road, Balanagar, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Manager (Finance) Mr. Amit Malik

1.The Asst. Commissioner (CT) LTU, Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad  2. The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Div   
 3. The Commercial Tax Officer, Balanagar Circle, Hyderabad 4. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,  Govt. of Telangana, Hyd 
 Rep. by its Prl. Secretary (Revenue)(CT) Dept., Talangana Secretariat Bldgs, Hyderabad Respondents 

Counsel for Petitioner  : Mr. Bhaskar Reddy Vemireddy  

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. M.Govind Reddy,  
                          Spl. Standing Counsel for CT (TS)

<Gist:

>Head Note: 

? Cases referred:
   Nil.

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN           
AND  
HONBLE SMT. JUSTICE T.RAJANI      

Writ Petition No.24410 of 2017

Order: (per V.Ramasubramanian, J.) 

      The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition
challenging a revision of assessment made under Section 32(2) of
the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005. 
      2. Heard Mr. Bhaskar Reddy Vemireddy, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. M.Govind Reddy, learned Special
Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes (Telangana). 
      3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the specific
objections made on 13-6-2017 at the time of personal hearing
with respect to VAT on the excise component and scrap, was not 
considered at all. The copy of the written objections is filed. The
impugned order does not show a consideration of the objections.
Therefore, the failure of the 2nd respondent to consider the
objections before passing the order has vitiated the impugned
order.
      4. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is
set aside and the matter is remanded back to the revisional
authority. The revisional authority shall fix a date for personal
hearing and hear the petitioner, consider their objections and
pass an order in accordance with law. It is needless to point out
that as a consequence of the revisional authority order being set
aside, the consequential order will also go. The miscellaneous
petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
No costs.
___________________________     
V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.      

_____________ T.RAJANI, J. 02nd August, 2017.