M/S. Sree Bajaji Constructions v. Additional Commissioner (Ct)

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM Date:31.10.2017 Between:

M/s Sree Bajaj Constructions, Kadapa, reptd by its Managing Partner-Y.Madhu Sudhan Reddy ..... Petitioner And:

Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, Vijayawada and three others.

.....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. C.Narendra Chetty Counsel for the respondents: Mr. S.Suri Babu Special Standing Counsel for CT (AP) The Court made the following:

CVNR, J & CKR, J Dated:31.10.2017 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash order, dated 24.7.2017, in CTD Order No.ACO/276/CCT's Ref No.LII(2)/206/2015, on the file of respondent No.1. By the afore-mentioned order, respondent No.1 has exercised suo motu power under Section-32 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and reassessed the income of the petitioner.

The main grievance of the petitioner is that proper opportunity of being heard was not given to it by respondent No.1 who passed the impugned order in a hurry as, the time for passing the revised order was expiring.

Mr. G.Narendra Chetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that certain grounds which were not even included in the show cause notice have been made the basis for passing the impugned order.

Mr. S.Suri Babu, learned special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes (Andhra Pradesh), has fairly conceded that the impugned order may be set aside with liberty to respondent No.1 to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner and pass a fresh order after considering the objections, if any, to be filed by the petitioner.

CVNR, J & CKR, J Dated:31.10.2017 Learned counsel for the petitioner agreed to this offer and submitted that his client would not raise the plea of limitation for passing the revised order by respondent No.1. In the light of the above, the impugned order is set aside, without adjudicating on the merits of the case, with liberty to respondent No.1 in terms of the concessions made by the learned counsel for both parties.

Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is allowed. As sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.45110 of 2017 shall stand disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY ___________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM 31st October 2017 DR