Remanded

M/s. Kores India limited v. Appellate Deputy Commissioner(Ct)

Telangana HC7 Apr 2021WP/7055/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Appellate Deputy Commissioner's order imposing VAT and Sales Tax on an appellant's turnover derived from inter-state purchases. The Court directed the respondent authority to issue a fresh notice, provide a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

The impugned ADC Order No. 1966 dated 30.12.2019 was set aside and remitted for fresh hearing with a personal opportunity to the petitioner.

M/s. Kores India limited Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 7055 OF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

lVl/s. Kores lndia limited, Having its address at 3-5-1089/9, Y|,4CA, Naranguda, Hyderabad Represented by its Authorized Signatory tt/r. N. Sekhar, S/o.^N. Ramasubrahmanyam Aged about 56 Years. R/o. Hyderabad

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Appellate Deputy Commissione(CT), Secundrabad Division. Hyderabad

¶13

Commercial Tax Officer, Narayanguda Circle, Abids^{Division, Hyderabad}

¶14

J. The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary,^{Revenue (ST), Secretariat,} Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court may be pleased} to issue a writ, direction or order more^{particularlyin the nature of a writ of} mandamus declaring the impugned ADC^{Order No. 1966 daled 30112120'19for the} period April 2014 Io march 2015 as being void, illegal. violative of^{principles of} nalural^justice, without^jurisdiction and^{withoutany application of mind and} consequently declare that the turnover^{of Rs. 1,03,54,106/- is not eligible to tax.}

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶18

Petition under section 151^{CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct} the Respondents to^produce the^{VATIS report in relation to the turnoverof Rs.} 1,03,54,106i-.

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶20

Petition under section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High court maybe pleasedto stay the} collection of tax^pursuant to the^{ADC Order No. '1966 daled 3011212019for the} period April 2014to march 2015.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl.^{M,NAGA DEEPAK}

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents:^{SRI SAI KRISHNA,AGP FOR}

¶23

ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶24

The C.ourt made the following:

¶25

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE M'S.RAMACHANDRARAO}

¶26

AND

¶27

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR}

¶28

WP.No .7055 of^2A2l

¶29

ORDER :^{(PerHon'blesriJusticeM S. RarnachandraRao)}

¶30

L. Heard Sri M.Naga^{Deepak,counsel for petitionerand} Sri Sai Krishna, Assistant^{Government Pleader, attached to} the office of the^{Advocate General, takes notice for} respondents.

¶31

In this Writ^{Petition,petitioner has impugnedthe ADC} order No" 1966 dt.30.12.2OI9^{passed by the AppellateDeputy} Commissioner(CT),^{Secunderabad Division(1"trespondent) for} the period April,^{2014 to March, 2015'}

¶32

Petitioner is^{a registered dea1er under the TelanganaVAT} Act, 2005 and also^{under the Centra-l Sales Tax Act, i956'}

¶33

A show-cause^{notice dt'21.01.2018 was issued to the} petitioner by the 2'd^{respondent alleging that it had affected} inter-state sales^{of goods for a turn over of Rs'9,94,92'3321'} by utilization of 534^{CST way-bills online covering the said} value during the^{year 2074-15 under the CST Act, 1956 and} that the petitioner^{had failed to report the same in its returns'}

¶34

Petitioner^{gave explanationto the saidshow cause notice} and claims to^{have provideda1i the materialsanC therea-fter}

wP_7055-2021

)

the 2"d respondent passed an assessment order No.40926 dt.23.08.2018.

¶39

Aggrieved by the lely of tax on a turnover to an extent of Rs. 1,03,54,106/-, petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1"t respondent. According to the petitioner, the above turnover is in respect of advalce way bills and the same is in respect of inter-state purchases.

¶40

7 . The lst respondent dismissed the said appeal by the rmpugned order No. 1966 dt.30. 12.2OIg.

¶41

Petitioner contends that the 1st respondent did not consider the submissions made by it and dismissed the appeal by the impugned order No. 1966 dt.3}.12.2019, which was served on the petitioner on OZ .Ol.2O2l.

¶42

9 . According to the petitioner, I st respondent erroneouslv included the turnover of the advance way bills generated bv the petitioner

¶43

1n inter-state procurement of materials and levied tax thereon and thus exceeded its jurisdiction by levy on lnter-state purchase ofgoods. According to the petitioner, neither the CST Act nor the TVAT Act authorizes the respondents to lery tax on inter_state purchase of goods.

¶44

10.After the Writ petition was fliled, notice was issued to the respondents arrd then they have filed report from VATIS system along with a note admitting that certain amounts of turnover of CST way bills was wrongly used instead of advance-way bills for CST purchases during 2014_15 and

¶45

::3:: MSR,J & TVK,J wP 7055 202t

¶46

proposing deletion of certain amounts of turnover from the total turnover which was proposed to be assessed.

¶47

Having regard to the said VATIS report and the note filed by the respondents, the impugned ADC order No.1966 dt.3}.l22ol9 passed by the 1st respondent for the period April, 2Ol4 to March, 2015 under the CST Act is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration. The l"t respondent shall issue fresh hearing notice to the petitioner, provide a personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a fresh reasoned order in accordaace with law and communicate it to the petitioner.

¶48

With the above directions, this Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶49

1 3. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shal1 stand closed.

SD/.I.NAGALAKSHMI

To,

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// @

¶54

SECTIdN OFFICER

¶55

i 4ppettate^{Deputvcommissione(cr),} Secundrabad Division. Hvderabad afiffi y:ts::,J,ffiti*:xruir*,ti:B;#T1f,"y,,#:dl1ffi

¶56

1 9n"^{CC to Sri. M.Naga Deepak,} Advocate tOpUCl 3 iWB 3$tt|AX**te^{cenei"ar ,'uign"d6l",t'i"'inl'stateor reransana.} [oUr]

PIV

HIGH COURT

DATED:I710412021

ORDER

WP.No.7055 of 2021

v
27 tPB 2021

Disposing of the WP Without costs.

¶65

,4,r
2bl
@

¶66

M/s. Kores India limited v. Appellate Deputy Commissioner(Ct)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Kores India limited v. Appellate Deputy Commissioner(Ct)

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

Bushra Maheena Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Other

Vemula Hareesh Vs The State of Telangana

Dr.Yeswanth Adapa Vs State of Telangana

the new india assurance Vs smt Padala lakshmi

Sri. G.V. Gyaneshwar Naidu and 4 others Vs Smt Lalitha Srikrish and 13 others

K. Akhil Reddy Vs Smt. Lalitha Srikrish