Bengal Cold Rollers PVT. LTD vs. The State Of Telangana
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Benoal Cold Rollers Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a letter dated August 7, 2023, issued by the Deputy Commissioner (ST-II) to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, EOW, Cyberabad. This letter requested prosecution against the petitioner for alleged violations of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and fraudulent transactions related to M/s. KLSR Infratech Limited. The petitioner sought to declare this letter, along with a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and signed statements of the Deputy Commissioner (ST-I), as illegal, without jurisdiction, and unenforceable. The petitioner also sought a stay on further proceedings. The respondents, including the State of Telangana and GST authorities, were arrayed. The petitioner's grievance was that the impugned letter was issued without affording an opportunity to explain adverse observations.
Held
The Court held that given the registration of an FIR (Crime No. 539 of 2022) and the filing of three separate charge-sheets against the petitioner's establishment in December 2023, the discrepancies and defects highlighted in the impugned letter dated August 7, 2023, which formed the basis for initiating prosecution, could not be faulted at this juncture. The Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition for the relief sought. However, the Court made an observation that since proceedings had already been initiated, the respondent authorities were expected to take further action in accordance with law. The Court also suggested that if the petitioner was given an opportunity to explain the discrepancies pointed out in the impugned letter, the same may be considered by the concerned authorities. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations, and no order as to costs was made.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned letter dated 07.08.2023, the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, and the signed statements of the Deputy Commissioner (ST-I) are illegal, without jurisdiction, unenforceable, and contrary to the Constitution of India and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as argued by the petitioner? The petitioner contended that these actions were arbitrary and issued without providing an opportunity to explain adverse observations, thereby violating their fundamental rights. 2. Whether the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are in accordance with law, considering the FIR registered and charge-sheets filed, as submitted by the revenue? The revenue, through the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 5, argued that summons were issued, and upon the petitioner's failure to submit relevant documents, charge-sheets were filed, and further proceedings were drawn strictly in accordance with law. The revenue did not explicitly argue on the legality of the impugned letter itself but rather on the procedural correctness of the subsequent actions.
Sections Cited
Section 65B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER t I:t II I I I ! I i It II I Ii a ! i I I ! : i I I I ! j
7 THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE P.SAM KOSTTY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE N.TI'KARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.177 OF 2o24 ORDER:/per Ho n'ble Sri Justie P.SAttI KOSHY) Heard Dr.S.V. Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the petition€r, Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No. 1, Mr.Dominic Fernandes, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, Ms.C.Rohini Smitha, Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 5 and Mr.Mohd. Abdul Mateen Qureshi, Iearned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.6. 2. The present Writ Petition has been Iiled seeking quashment of correspondence dated O7.Oa.2O23 made by respondent No.4 to respondent No.6, requesting him to initiate appropriate prosecution against the petitioner for violation of various provisions of the Goods and Sen'ices Tax Act, 2Ol7 and also for the fraudulent and frctitious transactions reflected in the establishment of M/s.KLSR Infratech Limited, which is a company raised by the petitioner's establishment.
Vide the impugned communication, respondent No.4 had requested respondent No.6 to look into the above aspect ald take appropriate steps. . >rJ /
2
Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 submitted that an FIR was already registered vide Crime No.539 of 2022 on 3O.06.2022 on the frle of Jeedimetla Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate and respondent No.6 has already ordered for freezing of the bank account of the petitioner. He has further informed that in fact, investigation in the said crime has already been concluded and three separate charge-sheets have already been filed against the petitioner's establishment in the month of December, 2023 before the concerned Court.
At this juncture, Iearned counsel for the petitioner sought a direction to respondent No.6 to permit the petitioner to submit a suitable explanation to the so called discrepancies ald defects, on the basis of which the respondents have charge-sheeted the pettroner.
Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 submits that after issuance of summons, rvhen the petitioner failed to submit any relevant document, the charge-sheet has been filed Nonetheless, further proceedings have been drawn strictly in accordance w,ith lar,v
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, particularly the submission of learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 that FIR has already I
3 been lodged and charge-sheet has already been filed, we are of the considered opinion that at this juncture, the discrepancies and defects reflected in the letter of respondent No.4 dated 07.O8.2O23, which are the source for initiation of the prosecution against the petitioner, cannot be found fault with.
Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition so far the relief sought. However, we only make an observation that since the proceedings have already been initiated against the petitioner, the respondent authorities are expected to take further course of action against the petitioner in accordance with law. In case, if the petitioner is given an opportunity to explajn to the discrepancies pointed out in the letter of respondent No.4 dated OT.OB.2O23, the same may also be considered by the concerned authorities.
With the above observations, the Writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed //// I T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT RESIFTRAR secrroP6rrrcen The Princrpal Secretary. Department of Revenue Secretariat, BRKR Bhavan. The State of Telangana,HYderabad The Pnncipal Cominissron'er, Central Tax Goods and Services Tax Hyderabad Telangana Tlie Commrssione"r of State Tax, Commercial Taxes Department Goods and Servrces Tax Nampally Hyderabad-500001 . The Deputy Comniissibndr (ST-ll), Enforcement Wing. Govt. of Tela.ngana O/o Commissioner of Commerciil Taxes C.T Complex, Nampally Hyderabad - 500001 . Telangana To, 1 2 3 4 I I I I I l ! I l
The Deputy commissioner (srJ), Enforcement wing o/o.commissioner of uf n"rR?ii3:1r.1#:igiffi :*rFall;gf"%ds;*;1%'*HJ;" Gachibowli, Hyderabad - Z. 9n" CC to Sri S V Rama Krishna, Advocate tOpUCl 9. 9ne QC to Sri Sri Dominic rernjniiesl-stftoiUbi-
Two CCs to Gp for Revenue. Hig-h Court for in6State ot Telangana, at 10.Two CCs to Gp for Home, Hah bd,r i;;6"'si#? retansana, at Hyderabad tOUTt
Hyderabad'lOUTl 12.Two CD Cop-ies TJ BS\$- I
\ I HIGH COURT DATED:0410112024 ORDER WP.No.177 of 2024 ,r* s S ..*- lELA/v att G ooH9 t t' olll 6 d-o * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. I I I I I I I I I i I I t ! \ ! I I I l ;
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.