Allowed

M/s. Donthala Purnachanra Rao Civil Contractor, v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Telangana HC6 Feb 2013WP/40647/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This while-writ petition challenges an order of revision of Assessment under the AP VAT Act, 2005, on the ground of violation of natural justice due to premature passage before the expiry of the specified time for objections. The High Court allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of revision of Assessment was quashed and writ petition was allowed.

M/s. Donthala Purnachanra Rao Civil Contractor, Vs… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No. 40647 of 2012

¶3

Dated: 06-02-2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s Donthala Purnachandra Rao Civil Contractor. rep. by its Proprietor D.Purchandra Rao.

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

And The Commercial Tax Officer, Nandigama Circle, Vijayawada-I Division Krishna Dist. and another.

¶8

…Respondents.

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶10

Writ Petition No. 40647 of 2012

¶11

Oral order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram)

¶12

Heard Sri Raji Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Balaji Varma, learned Special Govt. Pleader for Commercial Taxes for the respondents.

¶13

The order dated 20-12-2012 passed by the 1^st respondent purporting to be a revision of Assessment under the provisions of the AP VAT Act, 2005 is assailed in this writ petition on several grounds and in particular on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The factual assertion for violation of principles of natural justice is that pursuant to the petitioner’s request dated 3-12-2012 for further time for availing the personal hearing opportunity, the 1^st respondent issued a revised show-cause notice on 3-12-2012 which was admittedly served on the petitioner on 14-2-2012, granting the petitioner seven days from the date of receipt of the show-cause notice to file written objections, failing which appropriate orders would be passed. However without waiting for the seven days period the impugned order was passed on 20-12-2012.

¶14

In the counter-affidavit the 1^st respondent admits to have issued the intimation dated 3-12-2012, which was served on the petitioner on 14-12-2012. The counter states that thereafter the petitioner filed a letter requesting a further twenty days to file its objections. But since the petitioner was earlier granted sufficient opportunity on a number of

¶15

occasions, the respondent passed the order on 20-12-2012. While the answering respondent could have been justified in rejecting the petitioner’s recidivist applications for extension of time, there was no justification for passing the revised Order of Assessment on 20-122012 even before the seven days period granted to the petitioner vide show-cause notice dated 3-12-2012 and served on 14-2-2012 on the petitioner, had expired.

¶16

In the above factual matrix the impugned order of revision of Assessment of VAT is unsustainable as transgressing the petitioner’s right to reasonable opportunity. Accordingly the said order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. It is however open to the 1^st respondent to pass a fresh order of revision and in accordance with law. No costs however.

¶17

_________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J

¶18

6^th February, 2013

¶19

_______________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

¶20

GRR

M/s. Donthala Purnachanra Rao Civil Contractor, v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Donthala Purnachanra Rao Civil Contractor, v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Regal Plywood Industries (P) Ltd., Vs The Additional Commissioner (Ct) (Legal)

M/s. The India Cements Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Central Excise

M/s. Aditya Engineers and Technicians Vs The Assistant Commissioner (Ct) - Audit

M/ s. Penna Cement Industriies Ltd, Vs The Union of India

M/s.Bharathi Industries, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer -Ii

M/s.Kavya Granites, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer -Ii