Allowed

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

Telangana HC8 Apr 2021WP/8794/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition assailing a Sales Tax Assessment Order. The Court held that there was a violation of natural justice and the order was passed against the wrong assessee. The assessment order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh proceedings with a pre-assessment notice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Assessment Order set aside, matter remitted for fresh consideration with pre-assessment notice and personal hearing.

M/s.Nitin Fordging and Steel Industries Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE M,S.RAMACHANDRARAO} AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE^{SRIJUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR}

¶7

WRIT P^{ETITIONNo. 87940F2021}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mis.Nitin^{Fordging and Steel lndustries' Plot} -No21/A'^{SVCIE'Shapurnagar' IDA-} Jeedimeila,^{Nurr _ nansarl%%v."5ili,i.l-:406' da;, Hia"iabad,Repri:sentedbv its} proprietor, Sri Bishan swaroop^Agarwar' ...PETITIoNER

¶10

ANDI '' Assistant Commtsstoner (ST)' formerly Commercial Tax Officer'^{Jeedimetla- 2} Circle, Hvderabad secretan/':epv;["r:? '^{$"dlil:.?li"ilTr%1i,'s5."813?3T"*1riJ,lt3i''"'iear}

¶11

Petition^{under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstancesStatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighcourtmaybepleasedto issue^{a Writ of Mandamussetting aside the impugned assessment order passed} by the^{first respondent dated 28103/2020' Vide Asmt : CST/36130198167/15-16'} Vide^{A O.No40202' passedfor the adsessment year 2015-16(CST) as illegal'} contrarytothePrinciplesofNaturalJustice'unsustainableinlawandiscontrarytothe directions^{of the Honourable Supreme Court and this Hon'ble Court'}

¶12

IAN :1 oF2 21 Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} Petition^under upport^{of the petition'the High Court may be pleased to grant} the affidavit^{filed in s} the disputed^{tax of Rs 7 '72 3l Ot- arislng in pursuanceo{ the} staY^{of collection of} the^{first respondentdated28lO3l2O2O 'Vide Asmt:} order Passed^bY 5-16,^{Vide A O No 40202'passed for the assessmentyear} csT/361^30198167/1 ing disposal^{of the above writ petition'} 2o'15-^{16 (CST)Pend}

¶13

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRIS' KRISHNA MURTHY}

¶14

t "^- c o^{u n s e r ro r th e Res p o n d e n ts : S R I s A'"11': E[t'tt?tt}

¶15

The^{Court madethe following:ORDER}

¶16

IIONOURAI}I-E SRI J USI'I C E NI.S.ITAN{,\CI IAN DITA RAO ,,\ND

¶17

ITONOUR-A.BLE SRI JUSTICE'I"VINOD KUNIAR

¶18

PI, lTroN No.8 of 202

¶19

o RDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S. Rarnachandra Rao)

¶20

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Sai Krishna, learned Assistant Government pleader attached to the Office of the learned Advocate General , appearin-rr Ibr r.esponcients.

¶21

2 In this Writ petition, petitioner assails the Assessment Order No.40202 dt.2g-03_2020 passed by the 1., respondenr under the Central Sales Tax Act i956 (for short .the Act,) for the Assessment Year20l5-16.

¶22

Learned counsel for petitioner contended that though the Assessee is a proprietary concern' the impugned assessment order is passed in the name of the proprietor and not in the name of the proprietary concern, and that apart, no pre_assessment show cause or final notice dt.06_03_2020 was served on petitioner and no personal hearing was also afforded to the petitioner though the impugned order mentions about affording ofan opportunity fbr personal hearing.

¶23

Sri Sai Krishna, Iearned Assistant Government pleacler attachecl to the Office of the learned Advocate General. appearing fbr respondents does not dispute the fact the impugned assessment order is issued in the name of the proprietor and not in the name of the

¶24

proprretary concem, which is the actua.l assossoe, and thfi nO personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner.

¶25

5' In our considered opinion, there has been a vioration of principles ofnatural justice and the impugned order is also vitiated for being passed against a wrong assessee.

¶26

Ther.efore, the Wr.it petition is allowed; the impugned Assessment Order No.40202 dt.Zg_03_2020 passed by 1.r respondent is set aside; the matter is remitted back to the r'r respondent for fresh consideration; the l't respo'dent shall issue pre_assessment show cause notice to the petitioner under Rute 64 of the Telangana VAT Rules; petitioner is permitted to file explanation or objections thereto within six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of such show cause notice along with supporling material; personal hearing shall be afforded to the petitioner by the f't respondent; and then a reasoned order be passed in accordance with law and communicate to the petitioner. No costs.

¶27

'7. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall

¶28

stand closed.

¶29

SD/-V.SUDHA ASSISTANT REGIS'RAR //TRUE COPY// \,/ SECTION OFFICER

¶30

To,

¶31

The Assistant Commissioner (ST), formerly Commercial Tax Officer, Jeedimetla^- 2 Circle, Hyderabad.

¶32

The Principal Secretary, Revenue^(CT) Department,^State of^Telangana, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶33

One CC to Sri S. Krishna Murthy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶34

Two CCs to The Advocate General, High Court^{for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶35

Two CD Copies. IVP

49"

HIGH^COURT

DATED:0810412021

,{ c S TA I{
q
c,-) 17 MAY 2021
,

¶40

ORDER

¶41

WP.No.8794 of 2021

¶42

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶43

\3 )fi\x

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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. Quality Technologies Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St). Ida