LANCO CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard arguments in TMP No. 254/07 and deem it proper to dispose of the main appeal itself. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant and the Learned State Representative stated that they have no objection for disposal of the main appeal itself. Accordingly, the appeal is being disposed. This appeal has been filed challenging the orders of Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), O/o The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, A.P., Hyderabad in CCT's Ref. No. L. III(2)/1616/2004, dated 12.10.2004, by which the Revisional Authority revised the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad dated 15.12.2000.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows. The Appellant M/s. Lanco Constructions Limited, Nagarjuna Hills, Punjagutta, Hyderabad are the registered dealers on the rolls of Commercial Tax Officer, Begumpet Circle, Hyderabad. They are engaged in the business of execution of works contract. The appellant opted for composition of tax as per the scheme provided U/s. 5G of the APGST Act, 1957. Accordingly, their application in Form -L was considered and they were permitted for composition upto 31.03.2000. As per the said permit, the appellant is liable to pay tax @ 2% till the date of validity of L1 permit. However, rate of tax was enhanced from 2% to 4% under Section 5G of the Act by Act No. 19 of 2000 w.e.f., 01.01.2000. In view of the Amendment, the assessing authority directed the appellant to pay 4% of the tax from 01.01.2000 by provisional assessment order dated 14.10.2000. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed an appeal before the Learned Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad and the Appellate Authority allowed the said appeal.

(3.) THE main submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the appellant sought permission to pay tax under Section 5G of the Act and that the rate of tax was 2% as on that day and in view of the same, the appellant sought permission and accordingly he was granted permission in Form L1 and that the appellant was paying 2% tax accordingly. It is his further submission that since L1 Permit was issued on 09.04.1999 and it is valid till 31.03.2000, the authorities cannot demand more than 2% tax and they are estopped in view of the permission granted to the appellant.