Allowed

New Pioneer Industries v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Dec 2021WP/28022/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, via Writ Petition No. 280/2021, examined a challenge to an ex parte revisional order. The court held that despite technical arguments, the petitioner deserved another chance to be heard personally. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the revisional authority to pass a fresh order after a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 29.10.2021 under Section 32 of the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was set aside and matter remanded to respondent No. 2.

New Pioneer Industries Vs State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE^{TWENTY THIRDDAYOF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE UJJALBHUYAN} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVIDEVI}

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO:²⁸⁰ 2^{2 0F 2021}

¶6

Between:

¶7

I.NEWPIoNEERINDUSTRIES,IMANUFACTURERandSUPPLIER. drscovenl Accrssonrrs^{fi-1-405t1t2, DooDH BOWLI HYDERABAD,} ielnr.rcnNn, REP^{BY. lts Proprietor . Ummatul Saleha w/oMir Anwar Ali' Aged} ,O*i. Eo^ytb, b"".^{Busines's,R/O. H.No' 1s-2-194158159' Prince Colony'} BhadurPura, HYderabad,^Telangana.

¶8

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶9

AND

¶10

state of Telangana,^{rep. by its Principal secretary, commercial Tax Havingoffice} at Secretariat Buildings,^{at Hyderabad.}

¶11

The Commercial^{Tax Officer, Begum Bazaar, Circle, Hyderabad'}

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith, the HighCourt may be pleased to} piign order, direction or^{a writ particularlyin the-natureof Writ of Certiorari calling} ior the records^{pertainingto R.R. No. 271201712018, DCAO No.524 and declare the} orO"ri p"ri"O^{by respoident 2 vide R.R. No. 27t2O17t2o18,DCAO No. 524, Dated.} )i-lO-iOZl as^{illegal, arbitrary,u nconstitutional and againstthe princi.ple.of natural} 1r.ti."^{,no conseqiuenily this ilonble court may be pleasedto set as sidethe orders} 'puir"o by the respondeht uide R.R. No. 2712017t2018, DCAo No. 524 , Dated .29' ,10-2o2landmaydirecttherespondentno2topassafreshordersstrictlyin accordance with^{liw after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner'}

¶14

IAN :'l OF 2021

¶15

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleased.topassan interim direction^{thereby staying all further prociedings in pursuant to orderspassed} vide R.R. No.27l2O17l2O1B,^{DCA.ONo' 524, Daled ' 29-10-2021'}

¶16

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRl.SYEDYASARMAMOON}

¶17

Counsel for^{the Respondents No 1' 2: GP FOR COMMERGIAL TAXES}

¶18

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶19

¶20

:lonourable Sri Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

¶21

and

¶22

Hc nourable Smt Justice P. Madhavi Devi

¶23

P 02 202

¶24

Order: ()er Hoa'b^, Sri Ja iu LI11al Bbayrn)

¶25

None i ppears for the petiiioner on call, though IMr. L.Venkat( shwara Rao, iearned Standing C_ounsel for the Commercial T: x Depanment is presenr.

¶26

On 09.1 .2021,we had passed the following order:

¶27

"Pr dtioner has challenged the legality and validiw of the order dated 29.L0.2021 passed by respondent No.2 under Se< don 32 of the Telangana Value Added Tax .r\ct, 2405.

¶28

Shc a contention of the petitioner is rhat though penonal rearing was granted on D.a4.2a21, by norice dated 1;.A3.202I, authorized representative of rhe petitioner :ould not be present in such personai he.rring on 19.04.202 because of the second wave of the pandemic. Therefore respondent No.2 passed the impugned onler daed 29.1. ).2A21, cx parte.

¶29

Mr. K. Raji Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel for Commerc; rl Taxes poins out that even afrer expiry of rhe date of pi sonal hearing on 19.04.2021., respondent Nr.2 did not in mediately pass rhe revisional order, and .it was passed aftr r completion of six months. No prejudice v,as caused to t re petitioner.

¶30

Be r ut as ir may, let Mr. K. Raii Reddy, leamed Senior St: rding C_ounsel, obtain instrucrions regarding remand of .he matter to the revisional authoriry for passing of a fresh ,rder on revision after giving an opponuniry of personal hr rring to the petitioner.,,

¶31

¶32

Referring to the order dated 09.11.2021, of this Court, leamed Standing C-ounsel submits that on 03.02.2021, norice v/as issued to the petitioner fixing personal hearing on 27.02.2a21.. But, as the petitioner failed to appear on rhat date, another norice was issued on U.a3.2a21 fixing personal hearing on 19.a4.2027. Yet again, petitioner was not present.

¶33

After hearing leamed Standing C-otursel for the respondents, we feel that the view taken by the respondents is too technical. After all, the impugned revisional order was passed ex par*.^1We feel that it would be in the interesr of justice, if the petitioner is given a fresh opportunity of penonal hearing before the revisional order is passed.

¶34

C.onsequently, we set aside the impugned order dated 29.1,a.2021 and remand rhe matter back to respondent No.2 for passing a fresh orde r in accordance with law.

¶35

Let the petitioner appear before respondent No.2 on 19.01.2022 whereafter, respondent No.2 may proceed with the revisional proceedings.

¶36

Since petitioner is unrepresented today, let a copy of this order be sent by the Registry to the petitioner.

¶37

In addition, respondent No.2 may also issue fresh notice to the petitioner.

¶38

¶39

¶40

9 \7rit Petiti rn is accordingly^{allowedto the extentir-rdicated}

¶41

above. Related i rterim application^{is disposed of.}

¶42

No costs.

¶43

//TRUE COPY//

¶44

so/-N cHtlm;'#ttsrElR , sE3T|ON^OFFICER l

¶45

To,

¶46

The Principal^{Secr€ ary' State of Telangana' Commercial TaxesHavingotficeat}

¶47

' i;;i;;i;i B,irdins ', it HYderabad'

¶48

2.TheCommercialTixofficer,BegumBazaar'Circle'Hyderabac.

¶49

One^{CC to Sri. SY :D YASAR MAMOON AdvocateIOPUCI}

¶50

Two CCs^{to GP fo COMMERCIAL TAXES'High Court for the Statoof}

¶51

i;;"s;;; at HYde^abad [oUT]

¶52

Two^{CD CoPies}

¶53

One^{SPare CoPY'}

rsn

LS x-U5'

HIGH COURT

DATED:2311212021

ORDER

WP.No.28022 ot 2021

,]
or

ALLOWINGTHEWRIT'ETITION

¶63

WITHOUT COSTS

¶64

-1,.
1
o<br>

New Pioneer Industries v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

New Pioneer Industries v. State of Telangana

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 Plr Projects Private Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner (STU-1)

M/s. Malik Cars Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner- Stu 2

M/s.K.Balaveeraiah and Sons Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

K. Prasad Vs Indian Bank

M/s.G.S.Traders Vs Deputy Commissioner, And Another

M/s. Progressive Aquatech Enterprises Vs The Debts Recovery Tribunal-Ii and 2 others