Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kia India Pvt Ltd vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 April, 2024
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
1
wp_77
779_2023
APHC010149272024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3209]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY
MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION NO:
NO:7779/2024
Between:
Kia India Pvt Ltd and Others ...PETITIONERS
...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENTS
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner
Petitioners:
1. VENKAT CHALLA
Counsel for the Respondent
Respondents:
1. GP FOR LABOUR
2. GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE
The Court made the following INTERIM ORDER:
Filing of Certified Copy of the order dated 29.2.2024 passed
by the 3rd respondent is dispensed with, for the present.
Heard Mr.Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petiti
petitioners.
s. Also heard the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 3.
The learned Government Pleader for Industries &
Commerce takes notice on behalf of the 2nd respondent.
wp_7779_2023
List the matter on 16.4.2024 to enable the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respective respondents to secure
written instructions and file counters, if any.
Issue notice to respondent No.4.
Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to take out
personal notice on respondent No.4 by registered post with
acknowledgement due and file proof of service in the Registry, by
the date of next adjournment.
The learned Senior Counsel made submissions inter alia
that though a detailed explanation has been submitted to the
show cause notice dated 30.3.2022 by enclosing the relevant
documents, the 3rd respondent issued another notice dated
19.5.2022 and by reply dated 26.5.2022, the petitioners once
again submitted all the relevant documents for consideration of
the 3rd respondent. He submits that though a detailed break-up
of the total Project cost was furnished and only the labour cost
involved in the construction of the factory to be taken into
consideration for calculation of the cess, the 3rd respondent,
basing on the report of the Vigilance & Enforcement Authority,
had taken the estimated cost of construction at Rs.7,899.19
Crores and levied cess on the same. He submits that in the
explanation the petitioner has also placed reliance on the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P.Power
Transmission Corpn. Ltd v. CG Power & Industrial Solutions
Ltd., (2021) 6 SCC 15, but the 3rd respondent, without even
referring to any of the aspects, which are stated in the
explanation including the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
wp_7779_2023
Court referred to above, had passed the impugned order, which
is not sustainable.
The learned counsel representing the respondent Nos.1 and
3, on the other hand, submits that as per the instructions, a
copy of the Vigilance report was furnished to the petitioner and
after considering the reply/ explanation submitted by the
petitioner, the impugned assessment order has been passed. He
submits that against the order of the 3rd respondent, statutory
remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner and instead of
availing the same, the present writ petition is filed and the same
is not maintainable.
Considering the submissions made and perusing the
impugned order, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the
same is not sustainable. Non-consideration of the relevant
material including the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
in the considered opinion of this Court, vitiates the order under
challenge. Hence, there shall be stay of all further proceedings,
pursuant to the impugned order dated 29.2.2024 passed by the
3rd respondent for a period of four (4) weeks.
NINALA JAYASURYA,J
vasu
