Allowed

M/s. Quality Technologies v. The Assistant Commissioner (St). Ida

Telangana HC8 Apr 2021WP/8762/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a tax assessment order passed without considering objections or providing a hearing. The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the order, and remitted the matter for consideration after a personal hearing and production of 'F' forms.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Revised Assessment Order was set aside. The matter is remitted to the 1st Respondent for reconsideration after a personal hearing and filing of 'F' forms.

M/s. Quality Technologies Vs The Assistant… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

wRlT PET|T|ON NO. 8762 0F 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

lr4/s. Quality Technologies, Plot no. 34/9/1 , C.l.E.E. Gandhi Nagar Balanagar Hyderabad-500037. rep. by its Proprietrix Narra Sukanya.

¶9

...'ET'T.ONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'1 . The Assistant Commrssioner (ST), lDA, Gandhi Nagar Circle, Hyderabad Rural Division,^"Gagan Vihar Complex", M.J. Road, Opp. Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500001, Telangana. 2. The State of Telangana, rep. by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue (CT) Department, Telangana Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS

¶12

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or. Direction more^particularly in the nature of TVANDAIUUS declaring that the action of the First Respondent in imposing tax on Purely Labour/Skill Oriented Job Work Charges not involving any transfer of^goods vide the impugned Revised Assessment Order vide A.O. No. 68219, dated 1611012020 (served on the Petitioner on 15/03/2021) and the Assessment Order vide A.O. No 29245, daled 1510312020, for the Assessment Year 2015-16 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and further in^passing the Revised Assessment Order without considering and without any drscussions or reasons regarding the application oldie Petitioner and without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, is without^{jurisdiction,} without authority, arbitrary, capricious, violative of the principles of natural^justice, iniquitous, unjust, and illegal, and consequently set aside both the said Revised Assessment Order and Assessment Order.

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶14

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^grant stay of collection of the balance disputed tax of Rs.¹ 1,68,513-00^imposed by the First Respondent for the Assessment Year 2015-16 under the Central Sales Tax^Act, 1956.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. NARENDRA^CHETTY

¶16

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

¶17

ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{M.S.RAMACHANDRARAO} AND

¶20

HONOURABLI, SRI JUSTICE^T.VINODKLMAR

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.8762^{of 2021}

¶22

ORDER:^(Per Hon'ble^{Sri JusticeM.S.Ramachandra Rao)}

¶23

Heard leamed counsel tbr petitioner and Sri Sai^Krishna, leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader attached^{to the Office of the} leamed Advocate General, appealing tbl respondents.

¶24

In this Writ Petition, petitioner has challenged the^revised Assessment Order A.O.No.682l9 dt.l6-10-2020 for^{the Assessment} Year 2015-16 under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956^(for short^{'the Act')} passed by the 1't respondent on the ground that the said order^{has been} passed without considering petitioner's objections filed on 29-09-2020 and without giving any notice or^{oppoftunityof hearing} the petitioner.

¶25

Leamed counsel for petitioner also pointed out that for^the subsequent Assessment Year 20 I 6- l 7, turnover^which the^petitioner claimed to be exempted on account ol it being^job work charges^has been granted exemption, but fbr the Assessment Year 201 5- 1 6, no such exemption has been granted and no reason is assigned for the SAIIC.

¶26

Sri Sai Krishna, learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the Office of the leamed Advocate General, appearing for respondents suggested that the impugned order be set aside and the

¶27

::2::

¶28

matter be remitted back to the^{l " r'espondent to consider the objections} filed by petitioner with a direction to petitioner to produce'F' forms *,ithin a specified period.

¶29

In view of the said submission, the Writ Petition^{is allowed;the} in.rpugned revised assessment order^{A.O.No.68219dt'16-10-2020,} served on petitioner on 15-03-2021 for the Assessment^{Year 2015-16} passed under the Act, is set aside; matter is remitted^back to^the 1't respondent for tiesh consideration; the 1't respondent^{is directed to} provide a personal hearing to the petitioner;^{petitioner is directedto} file 'F' forms within four^{(04) weeks beforethe 1" respondent;the} l'1 respondent shall^{then decide the matter in accordancewith law,} afterconsideringtheobjectionsraisedbythepetitionerandalso.F' folms, if any,^{producedby the petitioner;and pass a reasonedorderin} accordance with^{law and communicateit to the petitioner' No costs'}

¶30

Consequently,^{miscellaneouspetitions' pending if any' shall} stand closed'

¶31

AssrsrANrsBlErssYR[A //TRUE^COPY// sEcnocffbFFlcER

¶32

1ffiffiffiffii-ffilTIl

IVIP 'k'h

HIGH COURT

DATED:0810412021

ORDER

WP.No.8762 of²⁰²¹

t:-
c<br>

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

M/s. Quality Technologies v. The Assistant Commissioner (St). Ida

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Quality Technologies v. The Assistant Commissioner (St). Ida

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

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

Praveen Kumar Pullagurla and 3 Others Vs Akkennaboina Krishna and 19 Others

M/s.Vanaja Electrical Appliances (P) Ltd. Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/s.Nitin Fordging and Steel Industries Vs Assistant Commissioner (St) and another