Allowed

M/s. Mayur Agencies v. The Commercial Tax Officer and 2 others

Telangana HC2 Dec 2020WP/20449/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition challenging a Commercial Tax Assessment Order for 2015-16. The Court held that the failure to serve a prior show-cause notice as mandated by Rule 64 of the Telangana VAT Rules violated natural justice. The assessment order was set aside and remitted for fresh consideration with proper service and a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Assessment order set aside and remitted; show-cause notice to be served as per Rule 64; personal hearing to be provided.

M/s. Mayur Agencies Vs The Commercial Tax Officer and 2… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEIUBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 20449 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

IV/s. I,4ayur Agencies, Represented byits Accountant, M. Rames hK umar, 1 -24-451 I 1 lG6, Maruthinagar, Alwal, Lothukunta, RR District - 5000 '15, Telangana

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The Commercial Tax Officer, Malkajgiri 2 Ctcle, Saroornagar Division, Nampally, Hyderabad -500 001, Telangana.

¶11

The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, State of Telangana, Commercial Taxes Complex, M.J. Road, Opposite Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500 001.

¶12

3 The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary (Revenue) (CT), Telangana Secretariat' Hyderabad - 500 o22

¶13

...RES'.NDENTS

¶14

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 issue a Writ, Order or Direction one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the Assessment Order in A.A.O.No.37763, dated 2710312020, passed by the 1st Respondent, for the period 2015 - 16, under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as void, arbitrary, highhanded, mechanical, without^jurisdiction and bereft of any valid reasons, apart from being illegal, violative of principles of natural^justice and Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of lndia.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶16

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 further proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant to the Assessment Order in A.A.O. No.37763, dated 27.03.2020, passed by the^'1st Respondent, for the period 2015 - 16, under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SINGAM SRINIVASA RAO

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M. GOVIND REDDY

¶19

SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

HONOTIRABLE SRI JUSTICf, M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO ANI)

¶22

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.20449 of 2020

¶24

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao)

¶25

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner assails the Assessment Order AAO No.37763 dt.27-03-2020 passed by the 1't respondent for the year 2015- 2016 under the provisions ofthe Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act').

¶26

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that no prior show cause had been serued on petitioner before passing the impugned order and even the impugned order was handed over to the petitioner by the Watchman of the petitioner in the middle of October, 2020

¶27

Petitioner contends that when he approached the l't respondent, he had stated that notices were sent to the petitioner through e.mail, but such manner of service is not permitted under Rule 64 of the Telangana Value Added Tax Rules, 2005.

¶28

Sri M.Govind Reddy, leamed Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes does not dispute that prior show cause notice was not serued on the petitioner in the manner prescribed under Rule 64 of the above Ru1es.

¶29

We are of the opinion that there has been violation of principles of natural^justice and grave prejudice has beert caused to the petitioner by not serving prior show cause notice on petitioner by 1't respondent

¶30

¶31

before passing of the impugned Assessment Order in the manner prescribed under Rule 64 ofthe above Rules.

¶32

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed; the impugned Assessment Order AAO No.37763 dt.27-03-2020 passed by the l" respondent for the period 2015-16 under the provisions ofthe Act is set aside; the matter is remitted back to the l" respondent for fresh consideration; the 1't respondent shall serve show cause notice on petitioner in the manner prescribed in Rule 64 of the Rules; petitioner is granted six (06) weeks from the date ofreceipt of such show cause to file objections to the said show cause along with supporling material; personal hearing shall be provided to the petitioner by the 1" respondent; and then a reasoned order shall be passed in accordance with law and be communicated it to the petitioner. No costs.

¶33

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall

¶34

stand closed.

¶35

SD/-I.NAGALAKSHMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// SECTIbN OFFICER To, 1. The Commercial Tax Officer,^{Malkajgiri 2 Cicle, Saroornagar Division,Nampally,} Hvderabad -500 001, Telangana.

¶36

2 The Commissioner of Comrierciat^{Taxes, State of Telangana, Commercial} Taxes Complex, M.J. Road, Opposite^{Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad-} 500 001.

¶37

3 The Principal Secretary^{(Revenue) (CT), State of Telangana, Telangana} Secretariat, Hyderabad^- 500^O22.

¶38

4 One CC to Sri Singam Srinivasa^{Rao Advocate} [O?UC-] E One CC to Sri M. 6ovind^{Reddy, Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes} IOPUC]

¶39

1. Two CD Copies

CHR

HIGH COURT

DATED:0211212020

ORDER

W.P.No.20449 ot 2020

B 1 H E s 14
o
k
f,)

---_c

¶46

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶47

5\) -l csPie) )tr r\-".,--

M/s. Mayur Agencies v. The Commercial Tax Officer and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Mayur Agencies v. The Commercial Tax Officer and 2 others

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

K. Gopi Prasad Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

A. Shalivahana Reddy Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and 3 others

Jambula Ganesh Reddy Vs Jambula Anjan Reddy

M/s Muralidhara Agencies Vs The State of Telangana

Malkani Nituben Bhojraj Vs The Director of Insurance

K. Sreenivas Vs Smt. Renuka Bai