THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.14350 OF 2011 Date:07.06.2011 Between: M/s.C.Srinivas Reddy Constructions Private Limited, Plot No.628, T2, Eden Banjara, Road No.3, Banjarahills, Hyderabad, Represented by its Director Mr.C.Srinivas Reddy, S/o.C.Parandama Reddy .. Petitioner And The Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal), Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Nampally St.Road, Opp:Gandhi Bhavan, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.14350 OF 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner assails the order of the first respondent dated 07.03.2011 whereby and whereunder the petitioner’s application for stay of collection of the disputed tax pending appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT), Hyderabad, was rejected. The brief fact of the matter to the extent relevant for disposal of the writ petition is as follows. The petitioner is a works contractor for the year 2004-2005. His turnover was assessed to tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for brevity, the Act). In his return, the petitioner claimed exemption of Rs.5,12,23,192/- under Rule 6(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 (for brevity, the Rules). The second respondent however initiated revisional proceedings under Section 20(2) of the Act and issued show cause notice to the petitioner. This time, the revisional authority reduced the exempted turnover to Rs.4,26,76,044/-. While doing so, the revisional authority observed that as per the profit and loss account, the assessee would be entitled to exemption on the turnover of the said amount only. Pending the appeal, the petitioner moved an application before the first respondent under Section 21 of the Act. The same was rejected by the first respondent which reads as under. A perusal of the assessment as well as the revision orders in this case reveals that the assessing authority granted deductions for an amount of Rs.5,12,23,192/- whereas the revisional authority restricted the deductions to only Rs.4.26.76.044/-. Though it is stated that the differential amounts relate to the cost of the establishment, hire charges and profit relatable to labour, cst of consumables etc., it is noticed that both the assessing as well as the revisional authorities failed to elaborate in their orders as to how they have arrived at the values determined by them respectively. A perusal of the copy of the profit and loss account filed by the petitioner reveals that the petitioner categorized the expenses incurred by them under more than 45 heads. It is not known as to which of these heads are grouped together by the authorities to determine the expenses deductable under Rule 6(2) of the APGST Rules. Secondly, it is noticed that the petitioner did not respond to the revision show cause notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner (CT). Thirdly, the petitioner also failed to file the required details even before the Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal along with their application for grant of stay or at the time of hearing. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant any stay on the collection of the disputed tax. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisional authority did not give any valid reason for reducing the exempted turnover and therefore it is illegal and arbitrary. We have perused the orders passed by the assessing authority as well as revisional authority. As rightly observed by the first respondent, both the authorities did not elaborate in their orders as to how they arrived at the exempted turnover. Probably for this reason, the first respondent made some efforts to peruse the profit and loss account and came to the conclusion that the petitioner claimed exemption in respect of 45 categories of items of expenditure incurred by them in the execution of works and that such grouping would not be determined under Rule 6(2) of the Rules. Further, he also noticed that in spite of issuance of show cause notice, the petitioner did not respond and therefore no interference is warranted. We have considered the matter with reference to the impugned order and convinced that the same does not suffer from any grave error warranting interference. We however observe that the Tribunal may dispose of the petitioner’s appeal as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 07.06.2011 KH