TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 1614
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial Counsel appearing on behalf of the learned Advocate General. 3. By an amendment inserted under A.P. Act, 28 of 1996, Section 4A was inserted w.e.f. 01.08. 1996 in the A.P. Tax on Luxuries Act, 1987. By this amendment, every Tobacconist was made liable to register himself under the Act and a luxury ta x became liable to be imposed under Section 3A. 4. The petitioner as well as other persons, who were considered to be tobacconists, challenged the vires of Section 3A, but a Bench of this Court upheld the levy. Th e decision of the Division Bench of this Court was taken on appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court by a decision reported in 139 STC 537 struck down Section 3A of the Act as unconstitutional. 5. It is relevant to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n submitted a report on 25.03.3013, recording a finding of fact that the petitioner has not collected any sum towards luxury tax for the relevant period from 01.04.1999 up to 20.01.2005. Therefore, heavy reliance was placed by the petitioner on the findings recorded by the firm of Chartered Accountants, when the contempt petition came up for final hearing before the Supreme Court. 7. After considering the findings recorded by the Chartered Accountants and the objections raised by the writ petitioner, the Supreme Court disposed of all the contempt petitions by a final order dated 06.02.2004. Paragraphs 7 to 9 of the order of the Supreme Court will be of relevance to decide the issues now raised before us. Hence they are extracted as follo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the respondents. If, for an y reason, the respondents are aggrieved by the orders that may be passed by the petitioners, they are at liberty to question the same before an appropriate forum." 8. Pursuant to the said order, the 2^nd respondent first issued a show cause notice dated 04.09.2014. Th e petitioner submitted a reply dated 08.12.2014 raising an objection relating to territorial jurisdiction. 9. However, the 2^nd respondent herein issued a revised show cause notice dated 08.12.2016, dealing with some of the points raised in the reply and also enlisting the evidence allegedly available with him. Upon receipt of the revised show cause notice, the petitioner has chosen to come up with the present writ petition. 10. Though the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tedly pointed out by the Supreme Court, the judgments of the Courts are not to be read like statutory provisions, calling for interpretation of every word or phrase. The expression "petitioners" appearing in paragraph-8 of the order of the Supreme Court passed in the Contempt Petition should be construe d to mean the authority having the competence to issue show cause notice. 13. It is true that today w.e.f. 31.01.2005, some provisions and w.e.f. 01.04.2005 the other provisions of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 have come into force. But insofar as the A.P. Tax on Luxuries Act, 1987 is concerned, the expression "assessing authority" is defined in Section 2(b) to mean the assessing authority appointed under Section 4. Section 4 (1) of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Advocate General, that even in the year 2005 amalgamation of both units, one located at Secunderabad and another located at Visakhapatnam, had taken place and that at the time of bifurcation of State there was only one unit and hence the later portion of Section 50 would apply. 17. In response to the said contention, it is argued by Mr. M.V.K. Moorthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that if the stand taken by the 2^nd respondent is correct, the Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam could not have issued a separate notice on 07.08.2015 demanding one portion of the tax that would relate to the unit at Visakhaptnam. 18. It appears from the material papers filed before us that the revised show cause notice issued by the 2....