BharatTaxGST

M/S.V.S.Offset Printers vs. Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Legal)

Original PDF →
WP/33647/2022HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01048982202213 September 2022Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN8 pages
For Petitioner: SRI.S.R.R.VISWANATHFor Respondent: SRI.L.VENKATESWARA RAO / GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
i HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 33647 OF 2022 Between: M/s.V.S.Offset Printers, 11$-837 11, Sana Apartments, Hyderabad 500 004. Hyderabad District. Represented Sri.E.Sathyanarayana Reddy . ...PETITIONER AND '1. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Legal), O/o.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Commercial Taxes Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad 500 001. 2. Assistant Commissioner (CT) (lnt), Abids Division, D.No. 54-435, 1st Floor. Old Kakatiya Hotel, Nampally Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500 001. 3. Commercial Tax Officer, Agapura Circle, Abids Division, D.No. 54435, 1st Floor. Old Kakatiya Hotel, Nampally Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500 00't. 4. State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary Revenue(CT), Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad : ...RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to i) lssue a writ, order or direction one more in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring the impugned Ex Parte revision order passed by the 1't respondent vide JCO No.24l2O22lCCTs Ref. No. L lll(2)/10012022-24 dated 16-07-2022 (Ex. P 1) contrary to principles of natural justice (in as much as it is pased post haste on 16;-7 -2022 even though according to notice by 19-7 -2O22 reply could be filed) and also contrary to sections 4, 13 and 32(4) ot the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and the rules 42 and 50(2) of the TVAT Rules in violation of articles 14, 19(1Xg), 21 ,265 and 300-4 of the Constitution as arbitrary, illegal without jurisdiction and set aside the same, ii) and ii) Direct the respondent authorities to pay the costs of this petition. Red Hills, Lakdikapool, by one of its Partners \ I j |.A.NO:1 OF 2022 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all proceedings including stay of collection of the disputed tax further to the impugned orders vide JCO No.24l2022lCCT's Ref.No. L lll(2)110012022-24 dated 16- 07 -2022 (Ex. P 1) pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.S.R.R.VISWANATH Counsel for the Respondents : SRI.L.VENKATESWARA RAO / GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

The Court made the following ORDER I

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHIIYAN THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY ORDER: Per the Hoable th.e ChieI Justira lJjjat Btaga4 Heard Mr. S.R.R.Viswanath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L.Venkateswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents.

2.

By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ol India petitioner seeks quashing of revision order dated 16.07.2022 passed by respondent No. 1 for the assessment period March, 2Ol4 to June,2OL7. 3. Be it stated that petitioner is registered as a dealer under the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 20O5 (briefly, .the Act" hereinafter) carrying on the business of printing and allied works. For the assessment period March,2Ol4 toJune,2o17,petitionerwassubjectedtoaSsessment under the Act. In this connection, assessment order was passed by respondent No.2 on 18.07.2018. AND WRIT PETITION No.33647 of 2O22 :

4.

Taking the view that the assessment order was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue inasmuch as there was alleged excess allowance of input tax credit (ITC) of Rs.6,92,727 .00, a revision show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 08.07.2022. Recording that the petitioner neither filed reply nor availed an opportunity of hearing, respondent No.1 con{irmed the additions indicated in the revision show cause notice vide the order of revision dated 16.O7.2022. 5. From the materia.ls on record, it is seen that the revision show cause notice is dated 08.07.2022 and it was served upon the petitioner on 11.07 .2022. From a perusal of the revision show cause notice it is seen that petitioner was granted seven days time from the date of receipt of the notice to file written objection, tailing which it was stated revision order would be passed. \

6.

As indicated above, the revision show cause notice dated 08.07.2022 was received by the petitioner on I i I I I

7 3 11.07.2022. The period of seven days would have expired on 18.07.2022. But, before the said period expired, impugned order dated 16.07.2022 carne to be passed. 7 . This aspect of the matter was gone into by us in a recent order dated 18.08.2022 passed in W.P.No.32644 of 2022 (M/s. Harshit Constructions v. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Legal) wherein it was held as follows:

"

7.

The show cause notice dated O8.O7.2O22 was received by the petitioner on 1I.O7.2O22. It has been averred in paragraph 13 of the writ allidavit as well as discernable from the endorsement at page 27 of the paper book. Seven days trom 11.07.2022 would mean L8.O7 .2022. However, before the period of seven days could expire and before the petitioner could file objection, l"t respondent passed t}le impugned order on 16.07.2022 alfirming the addition proposed in the show cause notice.

8.

When the 1", respondent had granted seven days' time to the petitioner to subrnit writt€n objection on the proposed revision of assessment, he ought to have waited till expiry of the aforesaid period. Without tl.e aforesaid period being completed, lst respondent hastily passed the order dated 16.07.2022 thereby pre-empting the petitioner from filing writterr- - objection. I I I

4

9.

When we queried Mr. K.Raji Reddy as to how an offrcer of the level of Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax could commit such a mistake, explanation furnished is that the Joint Commissioner was under the impression that the period of seven days would commence from the date of show cause notice. lO. When the show cause notice itself clearly says that petitioner should file written statement within seven days of receipt of the notice, we fail to understand as to how l"t respondent could have arrived at such a conclusion. I I . We are not satisfred with such an explanation. However, in the present proceeding we are not inclined to delve into this aspect of the matter but in an appropriate case we may consider awarding exemplary costs if we are of the view that such mistakes are rrot bona fid-e.

12.

In view of above, we set aside the revisional I order dated 76.07.2022 and remand t]le matter back to the 1st respondent. Petitioner shall submit written objection to the show cause notice dated, O8.O7,2O22 within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order whereaJter l"t respondent shall pass fresh order in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner." \ I I

1 1 : 5

8.

Following the a-foresaid order, we set aside the revision order dated 16.07.2022 and remand the matter back to respondent No.

1.

Petitioner shall submit written objection to the show cause notice dated 08.07.2022 wtthin seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, whereafter respondent No.1 shall pass fresh order in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

9.

Writ petition is accordingly allowed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. //// G.SIREESHA ASSTSTANT REGrsrmR sEcrroN Krrcea s I To 1. 7,

8.

S.A J The Joint Cornmissioner of Comniercial Taxes (Legal), O/o.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Commercial Taxes Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad 500 001. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (lnt), Abids Division, D.llo. 54-435, 1st Floor. Old Kakatiya Hotel, Nampally Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad - ' 500 001. The Commercial Tax Officer, Agapura Circle, Abids Division, D.No. 54-435, 1st Floor. Old Kakatiya Hotel, Nampally Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500 001. The Principal Secretary, Revenue(CT), Secretariat, Saifabad, State of Telangana at Hyderabad. One CC to SRI.S.R.R.VISWANATH, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI.L.VENKATESWARA RAO / GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX (oPUC) Two CD Copies One spare copy \#- 4 5 6 PS ; I I /

t HIGH COURT DATED:1310912022 ORDER WP.No.33647 of 2022 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. a: orj 2 2 [Ei: ?,1?2 .) ';' ,tr --r-Z=:\- $inn srart-\ I i I I ii I I I I I

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.