BharatTaxGST

M/S.Premium Life Style And Fashion INDIA (P) LTD. vs. Additional Commissioner (St)

Original PDF →
WP/22473/2023HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01041162202302 January 2024Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI6 pages
For Petitioner: SRI S.R.R.VISWANATHFor Respondent: SRI V.RAJESHWAR RAO

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[ 337s ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Originat Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No:22473 OF 2023 Between: [vJlsfrgglym.!.'.r." 9tyt. And Fashion tndia (p) Ltd., D.No.8/2/2g3tNN14f , Road No.2., Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad 500 033. Represented by one of its Directors Meghna Singh. .....PETITIONER AND 1. Additional Commissioner (ST), punjagutta Division, Mayur Kushal Complex, Abids, Hyderabad. 2. Assistant Commissioner (CT) Audit, Punjagutta Division, Mayur Kushal Complex, Abids, Hyderabad. 3. Joint Commissioner (ST), STU -1, punjagufta Division, Mayur Kushal Complex, Abids, Hyderabad. 4. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Commercial Taxes Complex, 1st Floor, W.Market Road, Opp.Gandhi Bhavan, Nampafly, f{yderabad SbO fiOt. 5. State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary. to 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 revision order vide D.C.Order No.250/R.R.No.13120'19- 20 dated 1OlO4l2O23 (Ex. P 1) passed by the 1St respondent beyond the limitation period of 4 years contrary to the decision of this Honourable Court in Sri Sri Engineering Works V Deputy Commissioner (2022) ! I I I 104 GSTR 51 (Telangana) and treating the mobile/cell phones as residuary V schedule goods liable to tax at 14.5 per cent contrary to Advance Ruling vide CCTs Ref.No./AR Com/50/2006 dated 2Sl1112006 and contrary to commissioners clarification and government memos and contrary to sections 4(3) (read with entry 39(15) of tV schedute), 32(3),67(4xii) and 76 of the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2OO5 and in violation of articles i , 19(1Xg), 21 , 265, and 300 A of the constitution as arbitrary, iilegal, without jurisdiction and set aside the same, and ii) Also declare the Effectual order vide A.O.No.2B95 daled 211062023 (Ex. p 13) issued by the 3rd respondent in pursuance of the above said impugned revision order as illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction and set aside the same. l-A.t'lO;1 OF 2023 Petition Under Section 15'l 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 further proceedings including stay of collection of the disputed tax in pursuance of the impugned orders vide D.C.Order NO.250/R.R.No..13/2019-20 dated 101O412023 and A.O. No.2895 dated 21tO6t2023 pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S.R.R.VISWANATH Counsel for the Respondents : SRI V.RAJESHWAR RAO

The Court made the following ORDER i I

"z-v.r // THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSI{Y AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAJUJI UI.P. No. 22473 of 2o23 ORDER:nrer FIo n'ble Sn Jusltce P.SAII KOSHY) Heard Mr.S.R.R.Viswanath, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.V.Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.

2.

The challenge in the instant writ petition is to the impugned revisional order dated 1O.O4.2O23 passed by the 1"t respondent.

3.

The challenge in the present writ petition is primarily on the ground that the revisional order is barred by limitation.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in ^Sri ,Srj Engineering Works and Added Tax, Act (for short 'the Act') the period of limitation for the revisional authoriry to revise the revisional order is four years under Section 32(3) of the Act ' 104 GsrR s1

2

5.

Learned counsel for the Department proceeded under the extended period of limitation which was brought by way of an amendment brought to the provisions of law with effect from 2017. The said amendment to the said provisions of the Act itself was subjected to challenge in the aforesaid judgment, which stood allowed, declaring the amendment of extending the limitation period from four years to six years to be ultra virus to the constitution and also bad in law. The order passed in Srj Srj Engineering ll/orks and olhers vs. Deputy Commissioner supra is also now stands confirmed by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of the same the instant writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed and the impugned revisional order dated 10.04.2023 for the said reasons stand set aside/quashed.

3 \ 7 To SA GJP \ Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT R ts //// SECTION OFFICER

1.

The Additional Commissioner (ST), punjagutta Division, Mayur Kushal Complex, Abids, Hyderabad.

2.

The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Audit, punjagutta Division, Mayur Kushal Complex, Abids, Hyderabad.

3.

The Joint Commissioner.(ST), STU -1, punjagutta Division, Mayur Kushal Complex, Abids, Hyderabad.

4.

The Commissioner of Comrnercial Taxes, Commercial Taxes Complex, 1st _ I!*r_, W Markgt Road, Opp.Gandhi Bhavan, Nampaily, Hyderabad SOti OOi.

5.

The Principal Secretary to Revenue(CT), Secretariat, SaiflOaO, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

6.

One CC to SRI S.R.R.VISWANATH, Advocate tOpUCl

7.

Two CCs to _S^ri VRajeshwar Rao, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

8.

Two CD Copies li

HIGH COURT DATED:0210112024 ORDER WP.No.22473 of 2023 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. ! r,1 i€ o -\'j\ ? C, f,o,J ,2 g ttB 2u1 r5 * oESPrnJ q,$

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.