Realtors must get VAT benefits
Profits cannot be given only to a few, say justices
Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court held that the denial of benefits of the Andhra Pradesh VAT Act to real estate developers for post-sale construction made in terms of the initial agreement was illegal and also contrary to the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. A division bench comprising Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice M. Satyanarayana Murti was disposing of a batch petitions moved by several real estate developers against the action of the commercial tax authorities of Secunderabad division in denying the benefit of composition under Section 4(7)(d) of the Act and serving demand notices on them.
The commercial tax authorities contended that the benefit of composition under the Act is confined only to those dealers who first construct and later sell residential apartments and not to those who commence construction, execute a registered deed for the sale of a semi-finished structure and thereafter complete construction of the residential apartment.
After perusing the provisions of the Act and contentions of the petitioners and respondents, the bench held that the contention of the authorities is not tenable. The bench ruled, “If dealers engaged in the construction and sale of residential apartments, houses, buildings or commercial complexes exercise the option and comply with the conditions stipulated in Section 4(7)(d) and Rule 17(4), they cannot be denied the benefit of composition for the construction made by them, for the very same person, after execution of a registered deed for the sale of a semi-finished structure.”
While setting aside the assessment orders, the bench directed the assessing authorities shall, in the light of what has been held hereinabove, re-examine the matter and pass orders afresh in accordance with law.
Tribunal stays all promotions
A two-member bench comprising Justice Samudrala Govindarajulu and K. Ratna Kishore of the AP Administrative Tribunal stayed all further promotions to the post of additional directors of medical education, principals of medical colleges and superintendents of various hospitals in the state of AP.
The bench granted the interim orders while dealing with a plea by Dr G. Sambasiva Rao, professor and in-charge superintendent, challenging the proposals prepared by the director of medical education of AP for effecting promotions to the posts of additional directors, principals and superintendents.
Dr K. Lakshmi Narasimha, counsel for the petitioner, contended that the proposals of the DME are contrary to the Supreme Court judgement in the Challa Jayabhaskar versus Tungathurti Surender case wherein a GO 502 issued in 2003 by the AP government was quashed.
The Apex Court had declared that making the cadre of a civil assistant surgeon is the basis for preparing senior list for the promotion to next higher cadre post in medical education and hospitals. He said that the government should prepare the list of all eligible professors in all the disciplines arranged as per the date of assistant professors only and not on the basis of civil assistant surgeons.
While admitting the plea, the bench stayed all further promotions based on the proposal of the DME.
Probe into illegal mining
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar of the Hyderabad High Court directed the Mahbubnagar district collector to probe into alleged illegal mining operations at Nethonipally village in Maldakal mandal of the district.
The bench was hearing a plea by Nethanna and five others of the district seeking to direct the authorities to restrain one B. Chandra Sekhar Reddy from illegal stone mining on the land belonging to the government in the village.
The petitioners told the court that the private person has been indulging in illegal mining operations by using blasting material without lease or licence on the government land and also running stone crushing units without permission from those in the authority.
The bench directed the district collector to conduct an inquiry and also to give an opportunity to both the petitioners and the respondent concerned for hearing and shall take appropriate steps in accordance with the law if found illegal operations in the area.
( Source : dc correspondent )
Next Story