Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
M/S. Sushee Hitech Projects (P) Ltd., ... vs 1.Commercial Tax Officer, Jubilee ... on 27 April, 2017
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HONBLE Ms. JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI
Writ Petition No.15852 of 2017
27-4-2017
M/s. Sushee Hitech Projects (P) Ltd., Kaushik Society, K.R. Chambers, Road No.12, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-34,Rep. by its MD
1.Commercial Tax Officer, Jubilee Hills Circle, Hyderabad;and 3 others... Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S.Suri Babu
Counsel for Respondents:Mr. T.Vinod Kumar,Special Standing Counsel
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
Nil.
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
AND
HONBLE Ms JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI
Writ Petition No.15852 of 2017
Order: (per V.Ramasubramanian, J.)
The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition
challenging a notice of assessment under the Entry Tax Act.
2. Heard Mr. S.Suri Babu, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. T.Vinod Kumar, learned Special Standing
Counsel for the respondents.
3. The petitioner earlier came up with a writ petition in
W.P.No.5873 of 2017. The contention raised by the petitioner
was that Dumpers and Excavators upon which entry tax was
levied are not tyre-mounted vehicles, but chain-mounted
vehicles used exclusively in Mines and that therefore there was
no question of bringing these vehicles within the purview of the
Act.
4. After considering the definitions of the expression
motor vehicle appearing in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and
in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and after taking note of
a decision of this Court in Vijaya Traders, Kadapa v.
Commercial Tax Officer-I, Kadapa [(2011) 53 APSTJ 47],
we disposed of the writ petition to the following effect:
9. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of to the
following effect:
(1) The petitioner shall file their objections to the
impugned notice on or before 13-3-2017;
(2) The 1st respondent, as a quasi-judicial
authority, shall independently consider the issues
without being carried away by the opinion of the
Assistant Commissioner (CT)-I, Enforcement Wing;
(3) The 1st respondent shall take the assistance of
a responsible official of the Transport Department of the
State of Telangana to physically inspect the vehicles in
question and give an opinion in writing as to whether the
vehicles are motor vehicles within the meaning of Section
2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; and
(4) Thereafter, the 1st respondent may hold
personal hearing and pass orders in accordance with
law.
5. Thereafter, the 1st respondent has issued the
impugned notice and the petitioner has come up with
a challenge to the same on the ground that the directions
issued by this Court to take the assistance of an official of the
Transport Department to physically inspect the vehicles, was
not complied with.
6. However, it is stated by the learned Special Standing
Counsel that an inspection was carried out and that the report
of the official of the Transport Department is awaited.
7. Unless and until the report of the official of the
Transport Department is received, it may not be possible to
decide whether a vehicle inspection actually took place or not.
Even the petitioner may not be able to know unless the copy of
the report is furnished. Therefore, the learned Special Standing
Counsel submits on instructions that the copy of the report will
be furnished.
8. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the
Assessing Officer to furnish a copy of the report of the official of
the Transport Department, as soon as it is received and
thereafter give an opportunity of personal hearing to the
petitioner and pass orders afresh. The miscellaneous petitions,
if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.
___________________________
V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
________________ J.UMA DEVI, J. 27th April, 2017.