RNZ TRAVELS Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AUDIT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions assail orders of Assessment passed under the provisions of the AP VAT Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act'), not on the ground of patent or inherent lack of jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer but on the ground that the Assessing Officer misconstrued provisions of the AP VAT Act, 2005 and brought to tax, goods or services not liable to levy of tax under the Act. As the impugned orders of Assessment are within the jurisdiction of the Assessing authority though alleged to be in erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, we are not inclined to take up adjudication of the issues presented in these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, since the petitioners have an efficacious alternative statutory remedy, of an appeal under Section 31 of the Act.

(2.) SRI Raghavan, the learned counsel for the petitioners however apprehends that the endorsement dated 18 -10 -2012 issued by the 2nd respondent -the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes setting out a gratuitous legal opinion that (a) hire of taxis/cars to units in SEZ under the category of rent a cab service and (b) charges from metered taxis/radio cabs, constitute transfer of a right to use, taxable under Section 4 (8) of the Act, would chill appellate discretion in the event of petitioners preferring appeals. On a query from this Court, the learned counsel stated that this endorsement was issued by the 2nd respondent on a representation made by the petitioner. However neither the counsel for the petitioners nor the learned Special Govt. Pleader for Commercial Taxes is able to point out any statutory provision qua which the 2nd respondent is authorized to tender an advisory opinion either as an Advance Ruling Authority or otherwise. This Court therefore clarifies that the endorsement dated 18 -10 -2012 has neither a declaratory nor a constitutive force qua the provisions of the Act. The Appellate authority must consider the appeals preferred by the petitioners on merits without being influenced or even referring to the endorsement dated 18 -10 -2012 of the 2nd respondent. On the analysis above and subject to the declaration of inconsequentiality of the 2nd respondent endorsement dated 18 -10 -2012, the writ petitions are dismissed with liberty granted to the petitioners to pursue the appellate remedy. No costs.