Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P.SAM KOSHY, SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
Srinivasa Resorts Limited – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
Suddala Chalapathi Rao, J.
Since the petitioner and the lis involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing together and disposed by this Common Order.
W.P.No.13863 of 2008
2. The Writ Petition vide WP.No.13863 of 2008 has been filed challenging the impugned order in Form VAT 305, dt.26.05.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent, whereby VAT was levied under the AP Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short ‘VAT Act’) on the Service Tax collected by the petitioner from its customers by including the same as sale price under Section 2(29) of VAT Act, and also the validity of Section 64(4)(ii) of the VAT Act of the Advance Ruling vide reference No.AR.Com/144/2006, dt.13.11.2006, as being arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and principles of natural justice.
W.P.No.13864 of 2008
3. The Writ Petition vide WP.No.13864 of 2008 has been filed challenging the consequential impugned order issued by the 2nd respondent levying penalty and interest on the VAT levied in Form VAT 305, dt.26.05.2008 on the Service Tax collected by the petitioner from its customers, as illegal, void-ab-initio; prayed to set aside both the impugned orders o
Service tax collected must be included in the sale price for VAT under the VAT Act, with no constitutional grounds for challenge against the relevant provisions.
Leasing hoardings is classified as a transfer of right to use goods, making it subject to VAT under Section 4(8) of the APVAT Act.
An assessment order continues to be effective unless reviewed or modified in appeal and so long as an assessment order remains without any such review or modification, no claim for refund would be ma....
The court confirmed the legality of surcharge and denied exemption claims on 'maida', emphasizing the obligation to inform taxpayers of assessment bases to ensure due process.
The court confirmed that sales tax liability requires clear evidence of collection, with the Tribunal correctly stating that merely inclusive pricing does not prove tax collection on exempt goods.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that Mandi Shulk levied under Section 17(iii)(b) of the Adhiniyam falls within the definition of the expression 'sale price' as defined in Section ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
