9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 884X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad registered himself as a dealer, under the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act'), with effect from, 31.12.2015. The Commercial Tax Officer (CT) (FAC), Circle-I, Ananthapur, on the basis of an authorization of the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Anantapuramu Division in ADM1B, dated 21.12.2015, had inspected the restaurant and bar of the petitioner and conducted a specific audit, on 31.12.2015. In the course of this inspection and audit, the Deputy Commissioner (CT), recovered incriminating material relating to the business of the petitioner for the period July, 2014 to October, 2015. An assessment order was passed against the petitioner, assessing the petitioner to tax of Rs. 61,13,078. This assessment was challenged before the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be 4% or 5% and not 12 ½% as sought by the assessing officer. 4. The assessing officer, after consideration of these objections, passed an order of assessment, dated 06.01.2022 assessing the tax payable by the petitioner as Rs.61,13,078/-. As there was an earlier payment of Rs.15,00,000/- which had not been taken into account, the petitioner had moved an application, for amendment of the amount due. A rectification order, dated 25.02.2022, was passed and the tax payable was reduced to Rs.46,13,078/-. 5. Aggrieved by the initial order, dated 06.01.2022, and rectification order, dated 25.02.2022, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 6. Sri G. Narendra Chetty, learned counsel appearing for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d party, except giving a vague name. Further, the Excise Act, under which the petitioner had obtained a bar licence, itself provides that a bar requires to have service of food also. In the circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that the sale of food in the bar run by the petitioner was conducted by a third party, is not acceptable. 10. The third contention of the petitioner is that tax could not have been levied 14.5% in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 (9) (c) of the Act, as minimum turnover of Rs. 1.5 crores per year was not available. 11. The turnovers, as calculated by the assessing officer, of the petitioner were a liquor sale turnover of Rs. 3,54,29,413/- and food sale turnover Rs. 1,02,20,407/- for the relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed sales; Explanation-II: The sale price relating to second and subsequent sale of goods specified in schedule VI shall not form part of taxable turnover; 15. The total turnover would be aggregate of sale prices of all goods taxable and exempted, which is taxable turnover and turnover which has been exempted. 16. Exempted turnover has been defined in Section 2 (14) to mean the aggregate of sale price of goods which has been exempted under the Act. 17. In the present case, the turnover of Rs. 4.54 crores, being the turnover relating to sale of alcohol and the turnover relating to sale of food has been taxed. The sale of alcohol, in the State of A.P., under the A.P. VAT Act, was to be taxed under Schedule VI 'at the point of first sale i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
