Allowed

Y.Mohan Reddy, v. The Commercial Tax Officer No.Iii

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Sept 2024WP/25876/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a revisional order under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The court held the order violated principles of natural justice by denying the statutory notice period and was beyond limitation due to evidence of a later telegram, setting aside the impugned order and closing consequential interlocutory applications.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the writ petition, set aside the revisional order dated 27-02-2006, and granted order of no order as to costs.

Y.Mohan Reddy, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

3?^

¶2

^ ‘

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAJT

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR ^

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶8

AND V. 'w JUSTICE NO: 25876 OF 'w

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 25876 OF 2007

¶10

Between:

¶11

Y.Mohan Reddy, Works Contractor, Door No. 12/501, G.V.Subba Reddy Street, Old Hospital Road, Nellore.

¶12

...PETITIONER"

¶13

AND

¶14

The Commercial Tax Officer No.III, Nellore.'

¶15

The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Nellore Division,^Nellore.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the actiot^f the 2nd respondent^inpassingthe impugned revision order dated 27-2-2006 served on the petitioner on 3-112007 as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and in violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same and consequently set aside the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 1-3-g006 served on the petitioner on 3-11-2007 and the impugned notice issued by the 1st

¶18

respondent dated 7-8-2007 which are consequential to^{therevisionorder} 4D^ssed by the 2nd respondent for the assessment year^2000-01.

¶19

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2007(WPMP. NO: 33726 OF 2007)

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant^tothe revision order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 27-2-2006^and the consequential order passed by the 1st respondent dated^{1-3-2006,andthe} impugned notice dated 7-8-2007 for the assessment year 2000-01 pending disposal of the Writ Petition as otherwise the petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI. KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.1,2: GP FOR COMMERCIAL^TAX

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

APHC010232122007

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶25

[3488]

¶26

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶27

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 25876/2007

Between;

Y.mohan Reddy

...PETITIONER

AND

The Commercial Tax Officer No lii and Others

¶37

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶39

1.KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶41

1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶42

The Court made the following or6er:(per Hon’ble Sri^{JusticeRRaghunandanRao)}

¶43

The petitioner had executed certain civil works for^{theassessmentyear}

¶44

2000-2001 and had been assessed with certain amount of tax, which had

¶45

been paid. The assessment was completed by an order^{ofassessmentdated} 02.03.2002.

¶46

Thereafter, the petitioner is said to have received^a notice of demand, dated 07.08.2007, calling upon him to pay an amount of

¶47

¶48

RRR, J&HN,J ' W.P.No.25876of2007

¶49

Rs.6,43,663/- as the said amount had remained as arrears^fortaxforthe assessment year 2000-2001.

¶50

The petitioner, after enquiry, is said to have come^toknowthata revisional order had been passed against the petitioner^due to which the aforesaid amount had become due.

¶51

The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said revisional order, has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition.

¶52

The case of the petitioner is that the order suffers^{fromviolationof} principles of natural justice and also that the order is beyond limitation, set out under the provisions of the APGST Act. The petitioner^also raises certain grounds on the merits of the case.

¶53

The case of the petitioner is that the revisional order records that the notice of revision had been served on the petitioner by affixture of the notices on the premises of the petitioner. The petitioner^{contendsthatRule58} of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957, which prescribes various modes of service, permits service of notice by affixture only after the other modes of service such as service by Registered Post or personal service by the process server of the assessing officer^{areexhausted.Herelies} upon the Judgment of the erstwhile Hon’ble High Court^{ofAndhraPradeshin}

¶54

¶55

RRR, J& HNJ W.P.No.25876of2007

¶56

the case of M/s. Kanaka Durga Wines vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes\

¶57

The petitioner also contends that the notice, that^is said^to have been served on the petitioner, on 25.02.2006, granted 7 days time to file his objections, which would mean that the petitioner would have time till 04.03.2006 to file his objections. However, the order of revision is said have been passed on 27.02.2006 itself and the same would amount to violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner had not been granted time of 7 days as set out in the notice.

¶58

The petitioner specifically relies upon a telegram, dated 23.03.2006, issued by the Revisional Authority and received by the petitioner on the same day, calling upon the petitioner to file his objections within 3 days and to appear on 27.03.2006 before the Revisional Authority for a personal hearing in the revision bearing No. 166/05-06. The petitioner contends that this telegram clearly demonstrates the fact that the revisional order could have been passed only after the said date of the telegram^{andthatwouldmeanthat} the order of revision had been passed on 27.03.2006 or thereafter only. The petitioner contends that the date of 27.02.2006, put^{ontherevisionalorderis} an antedate and the revisional order was actually passed beyond limitation.

¶59

' 2001 (4) ALT 258: (2001) 33 APSTJ 89

¶60

¶61

RRR, J&HNJ W.P.No.25876 of 2007

¶62

The Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax would submits that though the notice of affixture was recorded in the order, the fact remains that the process server had attempted to serve^{thenoticeonvarious} dates and upon failure of such service, the process^{ofaffixtureofthenotice} had been carried out. He would further submit that the telegram, dated 23.03.2006, could have been issued for any other purpose^and it cannot be held that it relates to the impugned revisional order.

¶63

The counter affidavit filed by the Revisional Authority^statesthat the notice of revision could not be served on the petitioner by the process server though attempts were made on various occasions.^{Astheservicecould} not be affected by the process server on the petitioner directly, the alternative method of serving the notice by affixture had been^carriedout.

¶64

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit^thatthisisan improvement over the case made out in the revisional order and such an improvement is not permissible in view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Ann vs The Chief Election Commissioner^.

¶65

^ 1978 AIR 851: 1978 (1) SCC 405

¶66

¶67

RRR, J&HNJ W.P.No.25876 of2007

¶68

In view of the fact that the order of revision merely states that notice has been served on the petitioner by affixture and there is no mention of any earlier attempt to serve notice, this Court cannot go into the question of whether any earlier proceedings had been initiated for service of notice.

¶69

Apart from this, the notice, said to have been served on the petitioner on 25.02.2006, had granted 7 days time for filing of objections by the petitioner. However, the order of revision was said to have been passed on 27.02.2006 without giving the time set out in the notice. For all the above reasons, this Court would have to hold that there has been violation of principles of natural justice. In the normal circumstances, this would have resulted in this Court setting aside the order of revision and remanding the matter back to the Revisional Authority. However, there are further circumstances which need to be looked into.

¶70

The period within which the revision could have been carried out. ended on 02.03.2006 as the period of four years from the date of assessment, i.e., 02.03.2002 expires on 02.03.2006. The order of revision is dated 27.02.2006. This is disputed by the petitioner who claims that this was an antedated order. The basis for such a claim is the issuance of the telegram dated 23.03.2006, calling upon the petitioner to file his objections to the proposed revision. This is -stated in paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner. The 2"^ respondent has not chosen to deny or dispute this

¶71

¶72

¶73

RRR, J&HN,J W.P.No.25876of2007

¶74

allegation in the counter affidavit filed by the 2’^'* respondent. In the absence of any denial of such a specific averment, it would have to be held that a telegram was issued on 23.03.2006, calling upon the petitioner to file his objections against the proposed revision. A perusal of the telegram shows that the petitioner was called upon to appear before the Revisional Authority in relation to the impugned revision only. This would only mean that the order of revision has been passed subsequent to the said telegram. Any such order would be beyond the limitation prescribed under the^Act.

¶75

In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the order of revision, dated 27.02.2006 that is said to have been served on the petitioner on 03.11.2007. There shall be no order as^tocosts.

¶76

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand

¶77

closed.

¶78

//TRUE COPY//

¶79

SD/- M.PRABHAKARA RAO ASSISTAN EG i SIRAR

¶80

SECTldN OFFICER

¶81

To,

¶82

The Commercial Tax Officer No.lll,Nellore. -^

¶83

The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Nellore Division, Nellore.

¶84

OneCCto SRI. KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY Advocate

¶85

[OPUC]

¶86

Two CCS to GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶87

Three C.D.Copies

. »

HIGH COURT

DATED: 18/09/2024

ORDER

WP.No.25876 of 2007

ANOf^
o
55 0 3 MAR 2025
, Current SecUsn ,

¶95

ALLOWING THE WP

¶96

WITHOUT COSTS

Y.Mohan Reddy, v. The Commercial Tax Officer No.Iii

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.Mohan Reddy, v. The Commercial Tax Officer No.Iii

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Koduru Rajesh Reddy, Vs Assistant Commissioner (St)

Sri. Nandipati Narasimha Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Shriram Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Smt. D. Lakshmi Devi

Manjeera Solar Systems Vs the Deputy Assistant Commissioner

M/s. Delta Mechcons (India) Limited, repby its Managing Vs The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes at

Gullapudi Someswara Rao, Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes