HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MONDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRSENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 7417 OF 2006
Between:
1. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan's Residential Public School, (Sponsored by
Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai),
Vidyashram-Pedatadepalli (P.O), Tadepalligudem-534 203,
West Godavari District,
Rep by its Honorary Secretary,
...PETITIONER(S)
AND:
1. The State of A.P., Rep by the Secretary to Government, Commercial
Taxes,
Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. Commercial Tax Officer, Tadepalligudem Circle, Tadepalligudem, West
Godavari District.
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner(s): R SUDHEER
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
The Court made the following: ORDER
2023:APHC:2647
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
W.P.No.7417 of 2006
Between:
Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan’s Residential Public School
(Sponsored by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai)
Vidyashram – Pedatadepalli (P.O),
Tadepalligudem – 534 203,
West Godavari District.
Rep. by its Honorary Secretary, Sri B.V. Seshagiri Rao .. Petitioner
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Commercial Taxes,
Secretariat, Hyderabad & another .. Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 30.01.2023
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
__________________________
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J
___________________________
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J
2023:APHC:2647
2
*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
+W.P.No.7417 of 2006
%30.01.2023
# Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan’s Residential Public School
(Sponsored by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai)
Vidyashram – Pedatadepalli (P.O),
Tadepalligudem – 534 203,
West Godavari District.
Rep. by its Honorary Secretary, Sri B.V. Seshagiri Rao .. Petitioner
Vs.
$ The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Commercial Taxes,
Secretariat, Hyderabad & another .. Respondents
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
! Counsel for petitioner : Sri R. Sudheer
^Counsel for Respondents : Government Pleader for Commercial
Taxes
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. MANU/UP/0242/1974
2. AIR 1999SC22 = MANU/SC/0664/1998
2023:APHC:2647
3
HON’BL SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
W.P.No.7417 OF 2006
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao)
Petitioner seeks writ of mandamus declaring the action of
respondents in directing the petitioner’s school to obtain dealer
registration under Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax (AP VAT) Act,
2005 and their action in assessing the petitioner’s school under the
said Act for the period 01.04.2005 to 31.12.2005 vide order dated
08.03.2006 is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21A
and 265 of the Constitution of India and to set aside the same and
pass such other orders.
2. Petitioner’s case succinctly is thus:
(a) Petitioner is Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan’s Residential Public
School located at Vidyashram, Pedatadepalli (PO), West Godavari
District. The Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan is a public trust registered
under Bombay Public Trust Act bearing Registration No.F-358
(Bom). The petitioner’s school was established in the year 1983 with
2023:APHC:2647
4
an object to provide education on non-profit basis. It was established
by the Philanthropists for development of society. The petitioner’s
school is run on non-profit basis. The school offers courses from
LKG to 10th standard as is recognized by Central Board of Secondary
Education (CBSE), New Delhi. As on the date of writ petition, the
petitioner’s school has 832 students and 70 staff members of both
teaching and non-teaching category. A number of schools were
sponsored by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan in the State of Andhra Pradesh
and petitioner’s school is one among them.
(b) The further case of the petitioner is that the Government of
India having recognized services of Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, notified
the society as an educational institution of national eminence for the
purpose of Section 80(g)(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (for short
‘I.T. Act’). As a result, the funds and donations received by the
society and the institutions sponsored by it are eligible for exemption
U/s 80 (g)(1) of the I.T Act. The petitioner’s school is being run from
out of the donations received by it. Apart from the donations,
petitioner’s school collects nominal fees and mess charges from the
students. During the financial year 2004-05, the petitioner’s
2023:APHC:2647
5
institution had a surplus of Rs.2.87 lakhs which was remitted to
Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan Society. The petitioner’s school does not
retain any surplus amounts with it. Petitioner’s accounts are audited
by the auditors appointed by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan Society.
All these facts would manifest that petitioner’s school is a non-profit
entity engaged in dissemination of knowledge in the spheres of
culture, arts and science. It is further submitted that the maintenance
of hostels by the petitioner’s school is incidental, ancillary and
connected with the main object and activity of imparting education.
(c) While so, the 2nd respondent visited the petitioner’s school
on 10.12.2005 and inspected the records. Thereafter he issued a
notice dated 30.12.2005 and called for the sales turnover for the
period up to 30.12.2005 along with the Form-100 and directed the
petitioner to obtain registration under the provisions of AP VAT Act,
2005. Subsequently 2nd respondent issued notice of assessment under
AP VAT Act,2005 on 17.02.2006 proposing to levy VAT for the
period 01.04.2005 to 01.01.2006 amounting to Rs.3,67,050/- on the
ground that the petitioner’s school sells the food items and thus
treated the activity of the petitioner in providing food as a business of
2023:APHC:2647
6
running restaurant / hotel for the purpose of the AP VAT Act, 2005.
The said act of 2nd respondent is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.
(d) For the purpose of AP VAT Act a dealer is one who carries
on the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods for
cash or deferred payments and includes any person who in the course
of business of running a restaurant or eating house or hotel, sells or
supplies by way of or as a part of any service, goods being food or
any other article for human consumption. Therefore, for the purpose
of bringing any person within the fold of Section 2(10) i.e., the
definition of dealer under the AP VAT Act, the said person shall have
to carry on the business of buying, selling of goods and in the course
of a person selling or supplying food or any other article for human
consumption, the same will have to be made in the course of business
of running a restaurant or eating house or hotel. The petitioner is
concerned, it is engaged in the activity of providing education to the
children in the age group of 3+ to 15 years. The activity of providing
education will not qualify to be an activity connected with trade,
commerce or manufacture and as such the petitioner cannot be termed
2023:APHC:2647
7
as a dealer for the purpose of APGST and VAT Acts and the
provisions of those enactments are not applicable to the petitioner
institution. The supply of food by the petitioner’s school to its
students is not being made in the course of business and running
restaurant, eating house or hotel. Whereas, Section 2(10(d) of the
VAT Act specifically refers to only a restaurant, eating house or a
hotel. Hence the said act has no application to the petitioner.
Hence the writ petition.
3. The 1st respondent filed counter and opposed the writ petition
contending thus:
(a) The petitioner got alternative efficacious remedy by way of
an appeal against the impugned order and hence the writ petition is
not maintainable. It is submitted that the petitioner is an educational
institution imparting education to the students of various classes.
Apart from imparting education, the petitioner is running hostel for
boarders supplying food for valuable consideration. After advent of
AP Value Added Tax Act, 2005 w.e.f 01.04.2005, a similar petitioner
made an application U/s 67 of the said Act seeking clarification from
Advance Ruling Authority under the AP VAT Act (i) as to whether
2023:APHC:2647
8
their line of activity would come within the meaning of business and
whether the hostel run by them is liable for registration under the
VAT Act, (ii) If the hostel is maintained by students themselves,
whether registration is required under VAT Act and (iii) Whether
G.O.Ms.No.1036 C.T.II, Department, dt: 20.10.1989 issued under the
APGST Act granting exemption to the educational institutions would
apply even to the VAT Act. The Advance Ruling Authority vide its
proceedings dated 11.11.2005 and clarified that in view of
explanation V to Section 2(28) of the VAT Act, the supply of food
and beverages by the petitioner is liable for registration U/s 17 of
VAT Act and also liable to tax U/s 4(9) of the VAT Act. It was
further clarified that in view of Article 366 Claus 29 A (f) of the
Constitution, Section 2(10) of AP VAT Act prescribes any
association which distributes goods to its members, any incorporated
body or unincorporated body is also liable to tax. Thus the Advance
Ruling Authority clarified that G.O.Ms.No.1036 has no application to
the VAT Act. The said ruling is binding on all the officers of
Department except the Commissioner (CT). Ergo, the 2nd respondent
issued notice dated 30.12.2005 requiring the petitioner to file VAT -
2023:APHC:2647
9
100 Form for the purpose of registration under the AP VAT Act,
2005 within 7 days. However, the petitioner failed to get himself
registered. However, the petitioner submitted a broucher and
computer extract of the ledger for the period 01.04.2005 to
30.11.2005 which would show, the petitioner received the mess
income of Rs.28,18,950/-, out of which Rs.23,49,125/- is attributable
to the sale value of the food and beverages supplied to the students in
the hostel. This amount is proposed for assessment U/s 21 of AP
VAT Act, 2005. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued
proposing tax @ 12.5% on the above turnover. Receiving the notice,
the petitioner did not file objections. Hence the assessment order was
passed on 08.03.2006 raising demand of Rs.2,93,640/- with penalty of
Rs.73,410/- . Hence the writ petition is not maintable and same is
liable to dismissed.
4. Heard argument of Sri R. Sudheer, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned G.P. for Commercial Taxes representing
respondents.
5. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that
predominantly the activities of petitioner’s educational institution are
2023:APHC:2647
10
in the nature of furtherance of objects of Bharati Vidya Bhavan which
is a public trust and is undertaking several philanthropic activities one
of which is imparting education on non-profit basis. Therefore,
petitioner’s educational institution shall, by no stretch of imagination,
be treated as a ‘dealer’ within the mischief of Section-2(10) of AP
VAT Act, 2005 since there is no element of business, trade or
commerce undertaken by the petitioner’s educational institution. So
far as supply of food items and beverages to the students in the hostel
by collecting mess charges is concerned, the said activity is only
incidental, ancillary and auxiliary to the main function of the
petitioner’s institute, which is obviously imparting education and as
such the supply of food articles and collection of nominal charges
from the boarders cannot be treated as an independent business
activity dehors the main function of purveying education with a nonprofit attitude. He would thus perore that the 2nd respondent’s
decision to assess petitioner’s educational institution to tax under AP
VAT Act in respect of the mess income of the institute treating the
same as sale value is wholly illegal and beyond the scope of the
provisions of the AP VAT Act, besides being unjust. He placed
2023:APHC:2647
11
reliance on the decision The Indian Institute of Technology vs.
State of U.P1
.
6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for commercial Taxes
while opposing the writ petition would argue that the writ petition is
not maintainable in view of the availability of efficacious of
alternative remedy of appeal. Nextly, regarding the merits of
petitioner’s case, learned Government Pleader, though not
specifically denied either in his counter or in his argument that
petitioner’s educational institute was sponsored by its parent society
i.e., Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan to impart education through its various
educational institutions as a philanthropic measure and on a nonprofit basis, however, would argue that the petitioner institute
maintains hostel for its boarders and sells food items and beverages
and collects charges from them which activity squarely comes under
the term ‘business’, inasmuch as, the supply of food articles is not a
free service but sale of goods and therefore the income earned out of
sale of food stuff is exigible to tax under the provisions of AP VAT
Act. He further argued that a similar petitioner has already sought for
1
MANU/UP/0242/1974
2023:APHC:2647
12
clarification from the Advance Ruling Authority and the learned
ARA clarified that any association, incorporated body or
unincorporated body which supplies food and beverages is liable to
tax U/s 4(9) of the VAT Act. As such, on the same analogy the
petitioner institute is also liable for tax. He thus prayed to dismiss the
writ petition.
7. The point for consideration is whether the petitioner’s educational
institution imparts education on non-profit motive but not on
commercial basis and if so, it is exempted from tax under AP VAT
Act, 2005?
8. Regarding the nature of petitioner’s educational institution, as
already observed supra, the respondent did not dispute that the
petitioner institute was founded by M/s.Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan,
Mumbai, a Public Trust. It is also not disputed that the said trust was
established with philanthropic philosophy for the development of the
society and one of its objects is to establish educational institutions
and disseminate knowledge without commercial or lucrative attitude.
The copy of certificate of registration filed along with material papers
by the petitioner shows that Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan was registered
2023:APHC:2647
13
under the Societies Registration Act vide Registration No.946/1939-
1940. Then the notification dated 12.04.2001 issued by the Director
General of Tax (Exemptions), Calcutta, a copy of which is filed by
the petitioner, shows that Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai, was
recognized as Educational Institution of National Eminence under
Section 80(g)(2)(iii)(f) of the Income Tax Act, meaning thereby all
the donations made to the Bhavan are wholly deductable for income
tax purposes. Then, the copies of the letter heads of the petitioner’s
educational institute shows that the same is mentioned as Bharatiya
Vidya Bhavan’s residential public school. Therefore, there can be no
demur that petitioner’s educational institution comes under Bharatiya
Vidya Bhavan’s public trust and its activity of imparting education is
not in commercial lines and on profit motive. In this backdrop, it has
now to be seen whether the petitioner institute is exigible to tax under
A.P. VAT Act.
9. (a) A.P. VAT Act, 2005 is a consolidated law relating to
levy of value added tax on sale or purchase of goods in the state of
A.P. and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto.
Section 4(1) lays down that every dealer registered is liable to be
2023:APHC:2647
14
registered as a VAT dealer shall be liable to pay tax on every sale of
goods in the State at the rate specified in the schedules.
(b) Section 4(4) lays down that every VAT dealer who in the
course of his business purchases any taxable goods from a person or a
dealer not registered as a VAT dealer or from a VAT dealer in
circumstances in which no tax is payable by the selling VAT dealer,
shall be liable to pay tax.
(c) Section 4(7) lays down that every dealer executing
works contract shall pay tax on the value of the goods at the time of
incorporation of such goods in the works executed at the rates
applicable to the goods under the Act.
(d) Then, Section 4(9) lays down that every dealer running
any restaurant, eating house, catering establishment, hotel, coffee
shop, sweet shop or any establishment by whatever name called and
any club, who supplies by way of or as a part of any services or in
any other manner whatsoever of goods being food or any other article
for human consumption or drink, shall pay tax.
2023:APHC:2647
15
10. Thus, Section 4 delineates that different categories of persons
such as sellers, purchasers, persons executing works contracts and
persons running restaurants, eating houses, hotels etc., shall be liable
to pay A.P. VAT Tax. Now, the question is whether the petitioner
can be termed as a dealer for sale of goods or a dealer running
restaurant, eating house, hotel etc., to come within the purview of
A.P. VAT Act.
11. Section 2(10) defines the term ‘dealer’ which means any
person who carries on the business of buying, selling, supplying or
distributing goods or delivering goods on hire purchase or on any
system of payment by instalments, or carries on or executes any
works contract involving supply or use of material directly or
otherwise, whether for cash or for deferred payment, or for
commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration. The
definition includes certain category of persons enumerated in the
explanations.
(a) Be that as it may, the qualifying phrase for a dealer is “who
carries on the business of”. Therefore, in order to be christened as a
dealer within the purview of this Act, he shall carry on the activity of
2023:APHC:2647
16
business. The word ‘business’ is also defined under Section 2(6),
which reads thus:
(a) any trade, commerce or manufacture or any adventure or
concern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture
whether or not such trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure
or concern is carried on or undertaken with a motive to make
gain or profit and whether or not any gain or profit accrues
there from;
(b) any transaction in connection with, or incidental or
ancillary to, such trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or
concern; and
(c) any transaction in connection with commencement or
incidental or ancillary to the commencement or closure of such
trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern;
Explanation: - For the purpose of this clause —
(i) the activities of raising of manmade forests or
rearing of seedlings or plants shall be deemed to be business;
(ii) any transaction of sale or purchase of capital
goods pertaining to such trade, commerce manufacture,
adventure or concern shall be deemed to be business; (iii)
a sale by a person whether by himself or through an
agent of agricultural or horticultural produce grown by himself
or grown on any land whether as owner or tenant in a form not
different from the one in which it was produced, save mere
cleaning, grading or sorting does not constitute business;
12. Thus, a conjunctive study of above provisions pellucidly
explains us that at the first instance, the activity of a person must be a
trade, commerce or manufacture so as to bring such activity as
“business”. If such business is carried out for buying, selling,
2023:APHC:2647
17
supplying or distribution of the goods, such person who is involved in
that business shall be regarded as “dealer” and under Section 4 of
A.P. VAT Act, such dealer shall be excisable to tax. In the instant
case, as rightly submitted by the counsel for petitioner, the
fundamental or principal activity of the petitioner’s educational
institution is not that of buying, selling, supplying or distribution of
the goods rather its function is to impart education that too on a nonprofit motive. The petitioner in its hostel supplies food to the
students but the said activity is not done in the course of business of
running restaurant, eating house or a hotel. As rightly submitted by
the learned counsel for the petitioner, section 2(10) (d) of the VAT
Act specifically refers to only a restaurant or eating house or a hotel
but the word ‘hostel’ is not specifically included therein. Therefore,
the inclusion of the petitioner’s institution in the category of dealer
for the purpose of AP VAT Act, 2005 and assessing the same to tax
U/s 21 of AP VAT Act is not correct. In Indian Institute of
Technology’s (supra 1) case the Indian Institute of Technology,
Kanpur was served with notices by the Sales Tax Officer for
assessing the institute under UP Sales Tax Act. The petitioner sent a
2023:APHC:2647
18
reply inter alia, asserting that the petitioner was not a dealer within
the meaning of the definition of that term under UP Sales Tax Act
and as such the notices were misconceived. Again there was second
round of exchange of notices. Thereafter the representative of
petitioner appeared before the Sales Tax Officer (STO) and tried to
explain that the petitioner was not a dealer. However, the STO did not
satisfy with the reply and passed an ex parte order of assessment and
initiated proceedings even for penalty. Aggrieved, the petitioner
institute filed the writ petition before High Court of Allahabad. The
petitioner’s case was that the fee charged from the visitors of the
hostel is not the actual price of the food consumed by them and the
principle of charging the fee is the same as in the case of other hostels
where students reside and that a fixed fee is charged for tea, breakfast,
lunch and dinner and the same has no relation to the actual
consumption and the charges paid by the residents have really a very
remote relation to the actual value of the food stuffs consumed by
them. Thus, according to petitioner, the transaction of supplying food
stuffs to the residents of the hostel cannot be termed as ‘sale‘ nor can
the petitioner be said to be ‘carrying on business of buying or selling
2023:APHC:2647
19
goods’ within the meaning of UP Sales Tax Act. The respondent
however contended that the petitioner charges price of foodstuffs
supplied to the visitors separately in the bills and that the customers
of the petitioner include all and sundry. The division bench of High
Court of Allahabad observed that the petitioner is under statutory
obligation to maintain a hostel such as the visitors hostel and its
activity in supplying foodstuffs to the occupiers of the hostel is an
integral part of the objects of the petitioner’s institute. It ultimately
held thus:
“20. Reverting to the facts of the instant case, it is clear that the
petitioner is essentially a residential institution where all students,
research scholars and research fellows have to reside in the halls of
residence and hostels built by the Institute and, in that connection, it
has to supply foodstuffs to the inmates of the hostels as also
incidentally to the relatives of the inmates and other persons who
come and stay in the hostel in connection with the activities of the
Institute. It is further clear from annexure H to the writ petition that
the charges for foodstuffs are paid to the petitioner on the basis of
fixed fee for tea, breakfast, lunch and dinner, which has no
relationship to the actual quality or quantity of the foodstuffs
consumed. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the petitioner's
principal activity is doing business in a commercial way of buying
and selling foodstuffs. On the other hand, it is apparent that the
principal activity of the petitioner is predominantly academic and the
2023:APHC:2647
20
supply of foodstuffs in the manner stated above is minor, subsidiary
and incidental to the principal activity and is an integral part of its
academic activity. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be dubbed as a
"dealer" within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the U. P. Sales Tax
Act. The Sales Tax Officer had accordingly no jurisdiction to initiate
proceedings for levy of sales tax on the petitioner. (Emphasis
Supplied)
21. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed, the order of
assessment for the year 1968-69 (annexure G to the writ petition) as
also the notices dated 3rd February, 1973 (annexures C-1 to C-4 to the
writ petition), and the direction contained in the letter dated 14th
March, 1973 (annexure F to the writ petition), are quashed, and
respondent No. 2 is prohibited from continuing the assessment
proceedings initiated in pursuance of the aforesaid notices and letter.
The petitioner will be entitled to its costs.”
13. Needless to emphasize that the ratio in the above decision
applies with all its fours to the present case, inasmuch as, in the
instant case also the principal function of petitioner is to impart
education with a non-commercial motive and running of the hostel is
incidental to the main activity and as such, though subsidized prices
are charged from the students for supply of the food items and
beverages, the transaction cannot be treated as ‘sale of goods’ to bring
the activity within the mischief of AP VAT Act.
2023:APHC:2647
21
14. The contention of the respondents that the writ petition is not
maintainable in view of availability of alternative remedy is
concerned, we find no much force in it. It must be reiterated that
mere availability of alternative remedy is not an embargo to entertain
the writ petition, rather, constitutional Courts observe judicial
restraint and discipline and generally desist from entertaining writ
petitions when alternative remedy is available in a given case. That
does not mean they lack jurisdiction. Even in cases where alternative
efficacious remedy is available, still the constitutional Courts can
entertain the writ jurisdiction in certain occasions. In Whirlpool
Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai2
the Hon’ble
Apex Court enumerated such occasions and held as follows:
“15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having
regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to
entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself
certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and
efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally
exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been
consistently held by this court not to operate as a bar in at least
three contingencies, namely, where the Writ Petition has been filed
for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental rights or where there
has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the
2
AIR 1999SC22 = MANU/SC/0664/1998
2023:APHC:2647
22
order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of
an Act is challenged.”
15. As can be seen, the above decision expostulates that when the
impugned order is passed by an authority without having jurisdiction,
the writ petition can be entertained in spite of availability of
alternative efficacious remedy. In the instant case the 2nd respondent
has passed the impugned assessment order though the petitioner
under law does not come under the purview of “dealer” as per the
provisions of AP VAT Act, 2005. Therefore, the impugned order can
be said to be passed wholly without jurisdiction and hence the writ
petition is maintainable.
16. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and action of the 2nd
respondent in directing the petitioner school to obtain registration as a
dealer under AP VAT Act, 2005 and the further action of respondents
in assessing the petitioner’s school to VAT under the provisions of
AP VAT Act, 2005 for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.12.2005
vide order dated 08.03.2006 is held as illegal, arbitrary and contrary
to provisions of AP VAT Act, 2005 and accordingly the said order is
set aside and if any amount is deposited by the petitioner in respect of
2023:APHC:2647
23
the above assessment order, the same shall be refunded to the
petitioner. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_________________________
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J
__________________________
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J
30.01.2023
krk
2023:APHC:2647
24
HON’BL SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
W.P.No.7417 OF 2006
30th January, 2023
krk
2023:APHC:2647
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.