Allowed

M/s Nikhita Enterprises v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Fac)

Telangana HC12 Apr 2021WP/9274/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a final assessment order under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The court held that service of notice via email is invalid under Rule 64(1)(b) of the Telangana VAT Act Rules. It set aside the order for violating natural justice and remitted the matter for fresh proceedings with personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Assessment Order set aside; matter remitted for fresh consideration with valid service of notice, affidavit support, and personal hearing.

M/s Nikhita Enterprises Vs Deputy Commercial Tax… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

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

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWELFTH 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

WRIT PETITION NO. 9274 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

I,4/s Nikhita Enterprise.s, 6-26-143, New Guni Road, Nizamabad. (Telangana), rep. by its Partner, tr/r. tr,/ahesh Chaperural Sio Shri Gopal Chbparwal, residbnt of Nizariiabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER AND

¶10

1, Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (FAC), Office of the Asst. Commissioner State Tax, 1st Floor, Tilak Garden Munibipal Complex, Nizamabad.

¶11

commercial rax officer-ll, office oi the Assl. c6mmissioner state Tax, 1st Floor, ^^{Tilak Gardenlr,4unicipalComplex,Nizamabad.} 3, Commissioner of Commelrq_ial Tqxgs, Govt. of Telangana, .lst Floor, .^{Commissioner of Commerciat} Taxes auitoing, Nampiity, HVOeiJOat^"'

¶12

4 The Principar secretary to Revenue oepirtmlnt, ciiveinment-oi Ter"ngrna, Secretariat, Hyderabao.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ of rvandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction decraring the final assessment order dt.2zro3r2o20 by which date pandemic covid-19 decrared lockdown passed by the 1st Respondent for the assessment year 2015-16 under the csr Act, 1956 revying @14.5% terming interstate sares turnover without crassifying the commodity, in demanding centrar sares Tax at Rs.32,g 2,271r- is quite arbitrary, illegal' contrary to law and consequently set aside the assessment order without following mandatory procedure in serving the notice or notices as prescribed under section 21 read with Rure, 64 the VAT Act and Rure, 2005 as viorative of principres of nature justice, equity.

¶15

IA NO: 10 F 2021

¶16

petition under Section 151 cpc prqying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to grant stay of co'ection of disputed centrar sares tax of Rs.32,g2 ,271/- pursuant to the ex-parte finar assessment order dt 27/o3l2020 passed by the 1st respondent for the assessment year 2015-16 under the csr Act, pending disposar of the above writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI TEJpRAKASH TOSHNIWAL

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: SRI SAI KRISHNA, AGp FOR

¶18

ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEM.S.RAMACI{ANDRARAO}

¶22

AND

¶23

HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICET.VINODKUMAR}

¶24

WRIT PE^{'Ir1'roNNo. 9271 of 2021}

¶25

ORDER:^{(PerHon'bleSri Justicc I\1 S. Ramachaudra I{ao)}

¶26

HeardlearnedcounselforpetitionerandSriSaiKrishna,.learned Assistant^{Govemment Pleader attachedto the Oftlce of the learned} Advocate^{General, appearingfor respondents'}

¶27

In^{this Writ Petition, petitionerassails the Assessment Order} No.37196^{dt.2'7-03-2020 passedby the 1" respondentunder the Central} SalesTaxAct1956(forshort.theAct,)fortheperiod 2015-16.

¶28

Learned^{counselfor petitionercontended that though the impugned} Assessment^{Order refers to a showcausenotice' remindernotice} dt.16-11-2019^{and final notice dt'06-03'2020'none ofthesenotices were} served^{on petitioner and no personalhearing was also afforded to the} petitioner.

¶29

I r ^^r'tont^(lovernment Pleader^{attached to} 4. Sri Sai^{Krishna'leamed Assistant Governm} the Office^{of the learned Advocate General' appearing for respondents} states^{that notices weresentthrough e'mail'}

¶30

It is settled^{law that underRule 64(1xb) of the Rules framed under} the Telangana^{VAT Act' which ts applicable even for assessmentunder} the^{Act, service of noticethrough e.mail is not a varid mode of service'} and^{in severalcases'this Court had specifically held it to be so'}

¶31

..). -

¶32

Since in^{our considered opinion'there has been violation of} principles of natural^{justice on account of non-sewiceof notice0n} petitioner in the r.nanner indicated^{under Rule 64(1Xb)of the said Rules,} the impugned Assessment^{Ordercannot be sustained'}

¶33

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is^{ailowed;the impugned} Assessment Order No.37196 dt.27-03-2020^{passedby l" respondentis} set aside; the matter is remitted to the 1"^{respondentfor fresh} consideration; the 1't respondent is directed to serve show cause^{notice on} petitioner in the manner indicated under Section 64(1Xb) of the Rules framed under the Telangana VAT Act, 2005; petitioner is granted six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of such notice to file objections thereto along with supporting material; a personal hearing shall be afforded to the petitioner by l'' respondent; and then a reasoned order shall be passed by l't respondent and communicated to the petitioner. No costs.

¶34

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions. pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶35

SD/-V.SUDHA

¶36

ASSISTANTPIEGISTRAR

¶37

/irRUE coPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶38

To, 1 ]lrg^{D-eputy commerciai rax} .officer^(FAC), office of the Asst. commissioner srate-Tax,^'lst Ftoor, Titak Garden Muni;ip;t b;mp'iExlr.li.amaoio

¶39

2 rhe Commerciat rax officer_ta off,"; o-t;fi;-is;i'E6rrili;;;; State Tax, 1st Fioor, Tilak Garden Ir,4unicjpat Compf&, f.flJm"UjOl"'

¶40

3 r ne uommrssroner of Commercial_ Taxes, Govt. of Telangana, .1st Floor. 4 U:,.J,;;:i:fl commissioner ,ot""i!.j31 of Commercial^{to neue} Tj*"J^{n, J} arir,iiid]^{oi pS.tirEiiflt""ern} r.rZrrlirrv, Hyderabad.^{ment of re ran gan a,} 5. 6. 9:: 99t".:rltejprakash^{Toshn iwat.. Advocare} topucl ilffi":rfi:Jidie^{Advocate General, Hishcou'ri roilhestate or reransana at}

¶41

1. IyS",.3ffi^{ti",ifi for Revenue' Hish court for the state of reransanaat}

¶42

1. Two CD Copies.^'

¶43

IVP lt{v

HIGH COURT

DATED:12 tO4t2O21

ORDER

WP.No.9274 of 2021

-,r 1e
o,3- t*
i!
.$
o .N<br>L!
$'
.,,!
il '1-

¶49

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶50

\
4\i,, t

M/s Nikhita Enterprises v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Fac)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Nikhita Enterprises v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Fac)

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. Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Limited, Vs The State of Telangana

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

M/s. Vyjayanth Engineers and Profiles (P) Limited Vs Commercial Tax Officer

J.Swarnalatha Vs The State of Telangana