PRIDE CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STGST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Suribabu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Y. N. Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader, Commercial Tax, for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner has moved the Court, for the following relief:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner undertook to develop 25 flats and entered into an agreement with the land owner and in consideration thereof, he receives 11 flats, whereas the land owners get 14 flats. He further submitted that the petitioner had paid tax under C.S.T and A.P.G.S.T for all 25 flats, however, again, charged with G.S.T on the ground that he rendered service under the development agreement, but the same, if at all liable, is to be paid by the owners and not by the developer. He further submitted that the impugned order of assessment suffers from three illegalities, firstly, none of the objections raised by the builder/assessee was considered as can be seen from para No.49 of the assessment order, wherein all the objections raised by the petitioner were rejected; secondly, the learned counsel submitted that the Assessing Officer lacks jurisdiction and thirdly, the tax was paid for 25 flats and again, he was charged with tax under the guise of tax on service for development of the very same flats.