M/S. Ortin Laboratories Limited vs. The Appellate Joint
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER --'-- -/
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No.l1410 of 2o25 ORDER (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chtef Justice Sujoy Poul): Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, for the respondents. Yadagiri, party-in-person.
The challenge mounted in this petition is to the appellate order dated 22.11.2024. The singular ground of attack to this appellate order is that the grounds raised in the appeal memo have not been considered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, by taking this Court to the 'discussions and lindings' portion, urged that from paragraph Nos.6 to 9, the learned appellate authority has mentioned about the background and reproduced the relevant provision of the statute. Thereafter, the appellate authority opined that the petitioner has not submitted any documentaqr evidence in support of short payment of tax under the Integrated
7 Goods arLd Sr:rvices Tax Act, 2Ol7 and raised cerlain claims. Thereafter, tht: appellate authority has recorded as ur der ' r. 1 . Since the appellants has not availi d the oppc,rtunity of the personal hearings to submit their obje,:Lions in their support and not submitt€d the doctLrnentary evidence as per thi provision fr rr the CGSI'/ SGST Act, 2077 there is no orher $ ay to disprse the case as dismissed and therefore the actic,n of the proper ofhcer in passing the imp rgned order is found to be in order, r.,t'arrantir g no intelference." He subrr.its l.hat even assuming that the petitior er did not appear for personal hearing, the appellate authority \.ras under a statutory obli;3ation to consider the appeal of the p,:titioner on merits. The appeal is pregnant with relevant grorrnds which ought to l-rave been considered by the appellate autho-ity. 4 I-,,earnr:d Assistant Government Pleader, r epresenting learned SpecirL Government Pleader for State Tax, ha'; supported the impugned order and urged that the appellate at thority has passed the impugned appellate order in accordance with law. 5. \\/e hrure heard iearneci counsel for the par ties on the aforesaid asp€ ot 6 A car:ful reading of the appeal memo wit r appellate impugnecl orcit:r makes it clear that the aJgument of learned counsel for ttr: petitioner has substantial force. The petitioner \
3 has raised various grounds in its appeal memo. Learned appellate authority has reproduced the factual background and thereafter, reached to the conclusion that the petitioner has not submitted any documentary evidence" The appellate authority further opined that since the petitioner did not atterid the personal hearing, there is no other way to dispose of the case but to dismiss it. We are unable to give our stamp of approval to such approach and linding. If a written appeai was filed, it was imperative for the appellate authority to deal with the grounds raised in the appeal even if the petitioner was absent .during the personal hearing. There is no iota of discussion in the entire appellate impugned order regarding the grounds taken in the appeal memo. 7 . Resultantly, the impugned appeilate order dated 22.1I.2024 deserves to be jettisoned and we do so by directing the petitioner to appear before the appellate authorit5z on 24.04.2025 at 11:30 A.M., for which no separate notice will be required to be issued. On such appearance, the appellate authority shall rehear the petitioner as per appellate authority's convenience and pass a fresh order in accordance law.
4
With aforesaid and without expressing any rpinion on merits of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Irrterlc,r:utory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. .S. MALLII(ARJUNA RAO ^q SI$TANT REGISTRAR /I// SEC:TION OFFICER rb, KKS Ls q- , ,*% Iii,Bj?,*?:l1 s:g'[,ff] "&T""ff :1" ra x s e{u n d e ra b r d D ivi s io n' Sth
The Deputy Commissioner (ST)' Sangareddy-l' Nizamabad Division' Telangana.
The Assistant (lommissioner (ST) (FAC)' Sangareddy-l' Circl'-'' Nizamabad' Telangana.
The Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT) Department' Telangarra Secretariat' HYderabad.
ONC CC; tO SRI. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA AdVOCAIE IOPUCI 6 Two CCs to GP for STATE TAX' High Court for the State of Telangana at HYderabad. [3tUT]
Two CD CoPies :.?FQgh.!q ?.,r . -- l
\ HIGH COURT DATED:1710412,025 ORDER WP.No.11410 of 2025 DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS a 1o cofd I #il, ol'19 a .$ z + "-i.\ \to'' IY o L: F. 9 { +
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.