IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T.VINOD KUMAR, P.SREE SUDHA, JJ.
M/s. S.B.P.L. Infrastructure Limited - Appellant
Versus
The Commercial Tax Officer, Jubille Hills Circle, - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos.22510 and 22615 Of 2006
Decided On : 28-05-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks to declare tax assessments illegal. (Para 22510) |
ORDER :
(T. Vinod Kumar, J.)
W.P.No.22510 of 2006 is filed with the following prayers:
(a) Declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the impugned/revised assessment order dated 4-2-2006 in proceedings Rc.No.1/3071/2003-04/APGST as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and without authority of law and contrary to the provisions of the Act and set aside the same and declare that the petitioner is not exigible to tax on the disputed turnover under Works Contract since the petitioner has not transferred any property in goods in favour of any third party.
(b) Declare the action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the petitioner’s appeal for the assessment year 2003-2004 under the APGST Act by the impugned order dated 01-07- 2006 in proceedings AR Sl.No.P/261/2005 on the ground that no proof of payment was produced before him as illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law and contrary to the provisions of the Act and set aside the same and declare that the petitioner need not deposit the 12.5% of the disputed since the petitioner was granted exemption for payment of Sales Tax being the recognized Special Tourism Project under the A.P. State Tourism Policy, 1998 and pass such other order or orders ….”
2. W.P.No.22615 of 2006 is filed with the following prayers:
(a) Declaring the action of the 1st respondent in passing the impugned/revised assessment order dated 4-2-2006 in proceedings Rc.No.1/3071/2004-05/APGST as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and without authority of law and contrary to the provisions of the Act and set aside the same and declare that the petitioner is not exigible to tax on the disputed turnover under Works Contract since the petitioner has not transferred any property in goods in favour of any third party.
(b) Declare the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the petitioner’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-2005 under the APGST Act by the impugned order dated 01-07-2006 in proceedings AR Sl.No.P/262/2005 on the ground that no proof of payment was produced before him as illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law and contrary to the provisions of the Act and set aside the same and declare that the petitioner need not deposit the 12.5% of the disputed since the petitioner was granted exemption for payment of Sales Tax being the recognized Special Tourism Project under the A.P. State Tourism Policy, 1998 and pass such other order or orders ….”
3. Since, the parties are one and the issue involved is same, these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order.
4. The facts set out in W.P.No.22510 of 2006 are taken for consideration of these Writ Petitions.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing on behalf of respondents, and perused the record.
6. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petitions assailing the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the revised assessment order date 04-02-2006 for the assessment year 2003-04 and 2004-05 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 ( for short ‘the Act’) by treating the petitioner has having executed works contract of construction and subjecting the purchases made by it by adding 15% profit as being illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law and contrary to the provisions of the Act.
7. It is the case of the petitioner that aggrieved by the aforesaid order of assessment, it had availed the remedy provided under Section 19 of the Act by approaching the 3rd respondent authority, and the 3rd respondent by order dated 01-07-2006 had rejected the appeal on the ground that the petitioner had failed to make payment of 12.5% of the disputed tax as pre-condition for admission of the appeal as provided under Section 19(1) of the Act.
8. Petitioner contends that originally, a Development Agreement dated 27-06-2001 was entered into by one Sri Gowrishanker Gupta and Smt.Sarita
Tax liability under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act is affirmed when the petitioner fails to provide necessary exemption proof and does not comply with appeal preconditions.
BOT contracts qualify as works contracts under tax law, with deferred toll payments constituting a sale, thus validating tax assessments during construction prior to toll collection.
The court established that the turnover of sub-contractors does not add to the main contractor's turnover, affirming the single deemed sale principle and preventing double taxation under the Andhra P....
Assessment orders issued beyond the three-year limit under Section 24(5) of the PVAT Act, 2007 are invalid; powder coating activities constitute a works contract subject to taxation.
The court ruled that tax assessments must be based on complete documentation, and jurisdictional questions regarding applicability beyond territorial waters remain open.
The court affirmed that a Build, Operate, Transfer (BOT) contract constitutes a works contract under tax laws, making the contractor liable for commercial and entry taxes.
The petitioner's appeal against the Assessment Order under sec. 23(4) of the MVAT Act was dismissed by the Court on the grounds of the availability of an alternative remedy and the presence of disput....
The absence of a provision for deduction of the value of land from the total turnover did not render the machinery provision unworkable under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act and Rules.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.