TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court sets aside VAT revisional order on iron steel classification under Section 32, remands for fresh hearing</h1> <h3>M/s. Kamakshi Metal Arch. Pvt. Ltd., Versus The Deputy Commissioner (CT), The Commercial Tax Officer, The Deputy Commercial Tax officer- II, The State of Andhra Pradesh,</h3> The AP HC allowed the petition challenging revisional proceedings under Section 32 of the AP VAT Act concerning classification of iron and steel items. ... Maintainability of petition - Jurisdiction of Revision proceedings under Section 32 of the AP VAT Act - classification of goods - iron and steel items - HELD THAT:- In the case of POTLAPELLI RAVINDER RAO VERSUS STATE OF TELANGANA [2022 (10) TMI 1212 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], a Division Bench of this High Court set aside the earlier revision proceedings in R.F.No.18/2019-20 dated 12.01.2021 passed by the 1st respondent and remanded the matter back to 1st respondent with a direction to issue notice to the petitioner, in which case the petitioner shall appear with his documents if any and thereupon the 1st respondent shall hear both parties and pass an appropriate order on merits in accordance with governing law and rules expeditiously. The impugned revisional order is set aside and matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent with a direction to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - Petition allowed. Issues involved:The issues involved in this case include jurisdiction of the 1st respondent in passing revision proceedings under Section 32 of the AP VAT Act, classification of iron and steel items for taxation, violation of principles of natural justice in passing the revision order, inclusion of turnover for a period without assessment, and the availability of an alternative remedy through appeal.Jurisdiction of 1st respondent in passing revision proceedings:The petitioner, a small scale industry, argued that the 1st respondent's revision proceedings for the tax period from January 2016 to June 2017 were without jurisdiction. The petitioner contended that their items fall under specific categories of iron and steel items taxable at 5%, not as general goods. The 1st respondent's revision order included turnover for a period without assessment, which the petitioner claimed was beyond the 1st respondent's jurisdiction.Classification of iron and steel items for taxation:The petitioner maintained that their items should be taxed at 5% as iron and steel, not at the higher rate applicable to general goods. They argued that the 1st respondent incorrectly classified their products under Schedule V of the AP VAT Act, contending that their items fell under specific sub-items of Schedule IV.Violation of principles of natural justice:The petitioner raised concerns about the violation of principles of natural justice in the revision proceedings. They highlighted that the 1st respondent passed the revision order without granting a further hearing to the petitioner after filing written objections. The petitioner's objections regarding the lack of power of the 1st respondent to assess for a specific period were not adequately addressed.Inclusion of turnover for a period without assessment:The petitioner objected to the inclusion of turnover for the period from February 2017 to June 2017 in the revisional order, as there was no assessment for that period. They argued that the 1st respondent could not exercise revision powers over a non-existing order and that the inclusion of this period in the assessment was illegal and without jurisdiction.Availability of an alternative remedy through appeal:The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax argued that the petitioner should have pursued an appeal before the AP VAT Appellate Tribunal instead of filing a writ petition. However, the court noted that the petitioner's claims of violation of principles of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction could be addressed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, allowing the court to exercise its jurisdiction.Conclusion:The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned revisional order and remitting the matter back to the 1st respondent for a proper hearing and decision in accordance with the law. The court emphasized the importance of affording the petitioner an opportunity to present their case and address the objections raised, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
