Allowed

M/s. Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Limited, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Apr 2021WP/9165/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Writ Petition, the High Court allowed a challenge against an assessment order passed under the CST Act. The court found the order violated principles of natural justice as the Assessing Officer failed to consider the petitioner's response or afford a personal hearing. The petition was allowed, the order remitted, and costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

Impugned assessment order set aside and remitted for fresh consideration with personal hearing; Rs. 10,000 costs awarded to petitioner.

M/s. Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Limited, Vs The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE S'] so";,;,'61E,35 l,Ehfli !,fl:i^{Ar HYD ERABAD}

¶3

FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWo THOUSAND AND rwe rlrv oNr-r

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTIC ,r, ,".r r;, ;fsr' :ilffJffin^*"

¶6

WRIT PETrTtONN o. 916 50F 20 1

¶7

Between:

¶8

ilFft :'jfl i$iid#S"Ji'i"Fd$[:j#]i,rii*FA1,,,ri,r%.:f, t::,Subhash

¶9

AND ...PETITIONER

¶10

The State of Telanc Represented by its Principal Secretary, (Revenue),

¶11

secretariat, Hvo"rro*31''

¶12

fhe. Assistaht Commissioner of State Tax, Jeedimetla ll Circle, Hyderabad Rurat Division, AUiul, Hlaeiiu"io.

¶13

(c.T is amended as per court order, dated 26.04.2021 in r.A.No.2 or 2021 .)

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned order dated 31 .03.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent for the assessment year 2016-17 (csr) in Ao No.41055 as illegal, unjustified and contrary to the provisions of law besides being violative of principles of naturaljustice.

¶16

lA NO:^'l oF 2021

¶17

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 the collection of the disputed tax pursuant to the impugned order dated: 31 .03.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent for the assessment year 2016-17 CST in AO No.41055 during the pendency of the above writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B. SRINIVAS

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶20

SRI SAI KRISHNA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT^PLEADERFOR THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE^{HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M'S'RAMACIIANDRARAO}

¶23

AND

¶24

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

¶25

wP.No.9^165of 1

¶26

ORDER^{i(Per HonbleSriJustice M s Rarnachandra Rao)}

¶27

In this^{Writ Petition' petitioner has assailed the} Assessment^{Order No'41055dt'31'03'202Lpassed by the 2na} respondent^{under the CentraiSa'les Tax Act' 1956 for the} period APril,^{2016 to March, 2017'}

¶28

Counsel for^{the petitionercontends that the2nd} respondent^{had issueda show-causenotice on 05'07'2019' to} which the^{petitioner had filed adetailed response} dt.2g.O3.2021^{making a specificrequest for personal hearing'} but the impugned^{assessmentorder has been passedwithout} considering the^{response of the petitionerdt'29'03} '2O2t^and without affording^{a personal hearing.}

¶29

Sri Sai Krishna,^{AssistantGovernmentPleader,attached} to the office of the^{Advocate General, appearingfor} respondents is not^{able to show from the impugned order that} the contents of the^{responsedt.29.O3.2O21 filed by the} petitioner, have been considered^{in the impugnedassessment} order passed by the 2"d^{respondent,and that personal} hearing was afforded^{to the petitioner.}

¶30

In the last one^{year, we have noticed at least 200 cases} where the Assessing Officer under^{the CST Act has not issued}

¶31

..)..

¶32

MSR,J & TVK,J wp_916s 2021

¶33

show cause notice or if they issued notice, they have not considered the response of the assessees, and mechanicaJJy confirmed the demand mentioned in the show_cause notice and we have had to set aside all such orders and make a remand to the Assessing Officers.

¶34

In spite of specific warning by this Court to the Standing Counsel for the Commercial Taxes Department that this kind of conduct by the Assessing Officers will not be countenanced, it appears that she same thing is continuing obviously because this Court has taken a lenient view in the earlier matters and had avoided imposing costs.

¶35

This Court is being burdened time-and-again to decide the correctness of such assessment orders being passed by the Assessing Officers in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶36

7 . In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed; the impugned .^{assessment order AO.No.41055 dt.31.03.2021} passed by the 2"d respondent is set aside; the matter is remitted back to the 2"a respondent for fresh^{consideration;} lnd lsspondsnt is directed to^{provide personal hearing to the} petitioner and consider the response of^{the petitioner} dt.29.O3.2021 along with supporting^{material, and then pass} a reasoned order in^{accordance with law and communicate} the same to the^{petitioner.The 2"a respondent shallalso pay}

¶37

MSR,]^&TVK'] ::3:: \P^{9\65,102</sup>}

¶38

costs^{of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) personallyto the} petitioner^{withina period of four (04) weeks'}

¶39

Communicate^{copy of this order to the Commissionerof} Commercial^{Taxes' State of Telangana'and also to the1"t} respondent^{in the Writ Petition'}

¶40

g. Consequently, miscellaneous^{petitions pending' ifany'}

¶41

shall stand^closed'

¶42

MEMORANDUM^{OF COSTS}

W.P.NO.916s oF²⁰²¹

Rs. Ps.

Costs Quantified^{by Hon'ble Court (The2nd} Respondent shall PaY^costs 9l Rs.i0,00o/.^(Rupees Ten^thousand) personally to the petitioner within a^period of four (04) weeks.

10,000-00

TOTAL

10,000-00

SD/. I.NAGALAKSHMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶51

NOTE: On being mention, That the Cause Title of R-2 in the order dated 09.04.2021 in W.P.No.9165 ot 2021 which is read as "The State Tax Officer, Hyderguda - Ashoknagar Circle, Abids Division, Abids, Hyderabad." is amended as "The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Jeedimetla - ll Circle, Hyderabad Rural Division, Abids, Hyderabad." as per the orders of Hon'ble Court, dated 26.04.2021 made in l.A.No.2 ot 2021.

¶52

This Amended Order shall substitute the earlier order which has already been dispatched on 20.04.2021.

SD/. I.NAGALAKSHMI

ASSISTANT REGIST AR

,TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, State of Telangana. 2. The Principar secretary, (Revenue). state of rerangana, tecretariat, Hyderabad. The Assistant commlsdioner ot state iix J"uo]r"t, - il circr;. irvibiroro Rural Division. Abids, Hyderabad. 4.A 9ne QQ^{to Sri B. Srinivds, AdvoCate} tOpUCl 1ffi"93:r,.iJ,!e,Advocate^{Generat. Hish bourr for the Stare of Tetansanaat} 6. Two ccs to'sri sai Krishna, lAsqisJgnt Government preader, High court for the 9tate_oJT_elangana,^{at Hyderab;d.} fOUn^- 7. Two CD Copies. trCHR W

¶59

HIGH COURT

¶60

DATED: 09t04t2021 DA ED:2610412021

¶61

.l H L TA I€
(l
o(j) 16 JUli 2i!?t

¶62

AMENDED ORDER

¶63

W.P.No.9165 ot 2021

¶64

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS,

¶65

¶66

U
<br>4

M/s. Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Limited, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Limited, v. The 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

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

Smt. Laxmi , Meenakshi Vs Sri Chetty Mahadevappa

P. Mallikarjuna Rao Vs M/s Sree Sai Kamal Ventures

M/s. Raniya Enterprises Vs The Commercial Tax Officer