Allowed

M/s. Raniya Enterprises v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Telangana HC12 Apr 2021WP/9286/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an Exparte Assessment Order under the Central Sales Tax Act. The Court found a violation of natural justice due to non-service of notices and lack of hearing. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh proceedings with proper notice and a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Assessment Order No. 53188 dated 31-03-2020 is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration following due procedure.

M/s. Raniya Enterprises Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^{TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

(SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

[/ONDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY^{OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA^RAO AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{T.VINOD KUMAR}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 9286^OF2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

l//s. Raniya Enterprises,^2-3-397, Nallagutta, Secunderabad - 500 003, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.^ReP by its Proprietor, Mr. Mohammed^Abdul Nasar.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Commercial Tax Officer,^{Ranigunj Circle, Begumpet Division, Hyderabad} 2 The State of Telangana,^{Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT)} Department, Telangana^{Secretariat,Hyderabad.}

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of^{the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith,the High Court may be pleased} to issue Writ of^{N/andamusor any otherappropriate Writ or Order or direction} declaring the action of the^{1st Respondent in passing the Exparte_Assess-ment} proceedlngs, dated 31i03/2020 for the tax period 2015-16 under the Central^Sales Tax Act 1956, without^{serving Notices and without granting sufficient opportunityof} being heard to the^{Petitioner,as arbitrary, contrary to law' barred by limitation for the} tax ieriod April, 2015 to^{February,2016, the same is in violation of principlesof} natural^justice, without^{jurisdiction, andconsequently set aside the Exparte} Assessment Proceedings^{of the 1st respondent, daied 3110312020'}

¶15

IAN O:1 OF 2021

¶16

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition,the High court maybe pleased to grant} stay of att further^{proceedings, in pursuance of the FinalAssessment Proceedings of} the' 1st respondent^{OateO:tlO:12020, for the tax period 2015-16,under.Central} Sales Tax Act 1956,^{pending disposalof the above writ Petition,as otherwise,the} Petitioner will be^{put to severe loss and hardship.}

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl.^{I SUDHAKARAREDDY}

¶18

Counsel for the^{Respondents: SRl.SAI KRISHNA AGP}

¶19

ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶20

The Court made the^following:

¶21

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶22

AND

¶23

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶24

WRIT PETITI ON No.9286 of 2021

¶25

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao)

¶26

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Sai Krishna, learned Assistant Govemment Pleader attached to the Office of the learned Advocate General, appearing for respondents.

¶27

In this Writ Petition, petitioner assails the Assessment Order No.53188 dt.3 l-03-2020 passed by rhe 1'r respondent under the Central Sales Tax Act 1956 (for shorr 'the Act,) for the period 2015-t6.

¶28

Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the though the impugned Assessment Order mentions that a show cause notice and final notice dt.06-03-2020 was issued to the petitioner, none of these notices were seryed on petitioner and no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner, and that the impugned order has been passed during the lockdown imposed by the Central and State Govemments on account of Covid-19 pandemic.

¶29

It is also contended that even the impugned Assessment Order.was not served on the petitioner and it was downloaded fiom the website ol the Department after l" respondent demanded for payment of tax under the said Assessment Order.

¶30

Sri Sai Krishna, learned Assistant Govemment pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General, appearing for respondents is

¶31

¶32

unable to show^{that the show causenotice and finalnotice dt'06-03-202"} were served on^{petitionerand petitioner was affordeda personalhearing'}

¶33

We are therefore^{satisfied that there has been violation of} principles of natural^{justice which has causedserious prejudice to the} petitioner.

¶34

Accordingly,^{the Writ Petition isallowed; the impugned} Assessment^{OrderNo.53188 dt.31-03-2020passed by 1" respondentis} set aside;^{the matter is remittedto the I't respondentfor fresh} consideration;^{the1't respondent is directed to serveshowcausenotice on} petitioner in^{the manner indicated under Section64(1Xb)of the Rules} framed under^{the Telangana VAT Act, 2005; petitioneris granted six (06)} weeks from^{the date of receiptof such noticeto file objectionsthereto} along with^{supportingmaterial; a personalhearingshali be affordedto} the^{petitioner by 1't respondeht;and then a reasonedorder shall be} passed by l't^{respondent and communicated to the petitioner'No costs'}

¶35

Consequently,^{miscellaneouspetitions' pendingif any' shallstand} closed.

¶36

SD/.V'SUDHA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶37

To,

¶38

lrhecommercnrraxoff^{ae*il?8?,?:"J:-t""tiHl3t1i:["1',1",'."0"0} . Th6 E)rincioal Secretary,

¶39

;ffi^{t::Lrtj,r".,ffik*:::l*:t:it".BIH%,,hes,a,eorre,ansana} ; !1t$t^{;t'e novocate General' High courtfor the stateof relansana' (oUT)} 6. Two^CDCopies'

Pt,1..rV

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210412021

ORDER

WP.No.9286 ot 2021

1 g STAIe
'(
o,J ,17 MAY 2021
,i
OlS irA1. !

¶46

Allowing the WP Without costs.

¶47

\ 1,<br>5b>

M/s. Raniya Enterprises v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Raniya Enterprises v. The Commercial Tax Officer

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 Nikhita Enterprises Vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Fac)

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

J.Swarnalatha Vs The State of Telangana