9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nover for the 1st quarter ending 30.06.2006 exceeded ₹ 10 lakhs. He did not avail that opportunity but waited for completion of 12 months period. The total turnover for 12 months period from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 was ₹ 43,47,418/-. As per the second leg of Section 17(3), he has to apply for VAT registration since the total turnover for 12 preceded months exceeded ₹ 40 lakhs. As per Rule-5 (b), he has to apply for VAT registration before 15.04.2007. However, he applied for VAT registration only on 18.05.2007 i.e., long after the expiry of stipulated period. Therefore, the 2nd respondent rightly rejected his claim and passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay VAT @ 12.5% and also treating him as VAT dea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been filing returns under turnover tax dealer from 01.04.2005 onwards. The petitioner filed returns reporting turnovers for 1st quarter ending 30.06.2006 for ₹ 13,14,724; 2 nd quarter ending 30.09.2006 for ₹ 11,77,404/-; 3rd quarter ending 31.12.2006 for ₹ 7,80,169/- and 4th quarter ending 31.03.2007 for ₹ 10,75,121/-. The total turnover reported for the year from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 was ₹ 43,47,418/-. So, he filed application on 18.05.2007 to register as VAT dealer since his turnover exceeded ₹ 40,00,000/-. c) While so, the 2nd respondent issued show cause notice stating that as per Section 17(3) r/w Rule 5(1)(b) of A.P. VAT Act, 2005, the dealers shall apply for VAT registration on or be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contention of the petitioner is that the provision in Section 17 (3) to the extent Every dealer whose taxable turnover in the preceding three months exceeds ₹ 10 lakhs is discriminatory and so also Section 49(2) denying input tax credit for failure to register as VAT dealer is also illegal and arbitrary. 5) Learned Government Pleader opposing the writ petition stating that the petitioner failed to apply for VAT dealership registration within the time prescribed under the law and therefore, the 2nd respondent correctly assessed him to pay tax @ 12.5% treating him as VAT dealer and denied him the input tax credit because he was only a TOT dealer at that time and there is no illegality in the order impugned. He further argued that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,724/- which exceeded ₹ 10 lakhs, the petitioner had an opportunity to apply for registration as VAT dealer. As per Rule (5) of A.P. VAT Act, the petitioner was required to make an application by the 15th of the month subsequent to the month in which the liability to register for VAT arose, meaning thereby, he should have applied before 15.07.2006 for VAT registration since the turnover for the 1st quarter ending 30.06.2006 exceeded ₹ 10 lakhs. He did not avail that opportunity but waited for completion of 12 months period. The total turnover for 12 months period from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 was ₹ 43,47,418/-. c) As per the second leg of Section 17(3), he has to apply for VAT registration since the total turnover for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
