9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2002 (2) TMI 1287 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
Provisional assessment under A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957; Appeal against provisional assessment; Rejection of application under Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Ordinance, 2001; Interpretation of appeal filing deadline under the Ordinance. Provisional Assessment under A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957: The petitioner, a garment manufacturer, was provisionally assessed for the tax year 1999-2000 by the Assistant Commissioner. The tax liability was determined at Rs. 4,63,273 as per the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957. Appeal Against Provisional Assessment: The petitioner appealed the provisional assessment order before the appellate authority, which was pending at the time of the dispute regarding the application under the Settlement of Disputes Ordinance. Rejection of Application under Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Ordinance, 2001: The petitioner filed an application under the Ordinance to settle the disputed tax. The rejection of the application by the respondents was challenged on the grounds that the appeal was filed before the deadline of March 31, 2001, as required by the Ordinance. Interpretation of Appeal Filing Deadline under the Ordinance: The Ordinance required that the appeal must be filed before March 31, 2001, for eligibility under the settlement scheme. The Court examined the timeline of the appeal filing and admission, concluding that the appeal was indeed filed in time, entitling the petitioner to benefits under the Ordinance. The Court held that the petitioner had met the conditions for the scheme under Ordinance No. 3 of 2001 and directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's claim for benefits. The rejection of the application was deemed unjustified solely based on the appeal not being registered by March 31, 2001. The Court invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside the rejection order and instructed the respondents to review the petitioner's claim for benefits under the Ordinance.
|
