HC of Telangana disposed of a writ petition challenging tax recovery steps. After admitting the department failed to send notices to the correct address, the court ordered the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh show cause notice with personal hearing opportunity.
Assessing Officer to re-issuе notice for fresh hearing and pass orders on merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN
& THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE P. KESHAVA RAO
W RI T PETI TI ON No.9 4 1 5 of 2 0 1 9
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Ramasubramanian)
The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging the steps taken by the respondent – bank for recovery of an amount, allegedly, outstanding under the Telangana VAT Act, 2005.
“ Mr. G. Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned counsel, takes notice for the respondents 5 and 6 (Bank).
It appears from the Certificate of Registration issued on 09.02.2016 that there was a change of address. Therefore, there may be a justification for the department having sent the show cause notice to the old address, as the show cause notice was dated prior to 09.02.2016. But, the final order of assessment was passed after 09.02.2016. But, the same also seems to have been sent only to the old address and the same returned with the endorsement “Left without Instructions.”
Therefore, the learned special standing counsel shall find out whether the Form ‘VAT – 112’ was filed and if not, how the Registration Certificate issued on 09.02.2016 showed the new address.
Post on 11.06.2019 “for orders.”
In the meantime, the petitioner shall be permitted to operate the account, but an mount equivalent to the demand raised by the department shall be always kept by the bank,
2
so that, if the petitioner loses the writ petition, the amount can be paid to the department.”
In the light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the
following directions:
Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall
stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J
________________ P. KESHAVA RAO, J
June 13, 2019/ DSK
PETITIONER
RESPONDENTS
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
P. KESHAVA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
