Allowed

M/s. Gulf Oil Lubricants India Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Telangana HC6 Jul 2022WP/13124/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed the writ petition in the present case by following its earlier judgment in W.P. No. 739 of 2020 (M/s. Sri Sri Engineering Works). The matter was disposed of in terms of that precedent without a separate detailed analysis of the facts.

What did the court decide?

Throwing of the writ petition to the same effect as in W.P. No. 739 of 2020; no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications closed.

M/s. Gulf Oil Lubricants India Ltd. Vs The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶5

Between:

¶6

WRIT PETI TION NO: 1 3124 0F 2022

¶7

M/s. Gulf Oil Lubricants tndia Ltd., Plot No.4, Block No. 36/4, Auto Nagar, Rangareddy, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500060 Represented by its Regionai Accounts Manager Mr. Manjunath.K

¶8

AND

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

The Commercial Tax Officer,-Ramgopalpet- Ranigunj Circle, Begumpet Dvision, Hyderabad, State of Telaigbnd

¶11

The Deputy Commercial Tax Officerl (Revisions), O/o The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Pegumpet Division, Hyderabad, State of Tel'angana.

¶12

I he Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of TelanganS, Namapally, Hyderabad.

¶13

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Rev) (CT) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hydeiabad

¶14

,..RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 ot 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 one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus:

¶16

i) by declaring the Telangana Act 26 of 2017 (An Act to further amend the Telangana Value Tax Act 2005) passed in violation of Articles 246, 246A, Entry 54 of List ll , Section^.l 9 of the Constitution (10'1't Amendment) Act,2016, as ultravires the Constitution and void ab initio and t

¶17

ii) by declaring the impugned penalty order passed by the 2nd respondent vide A.O.No.1775 dated 1BlO2t2O22 for the assessment year 2015-'16 to 2O17-jB under TVAT Act 2005 relying upon on the extended limitation of 6 years prescribed by Act 26 of 2017 as barred by limitation, illegal, arbitrary, high handed, without authority of law and jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the Act, in violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same

¶18

ll2il

¶19

iii) Declare that since there is no allegation or averment of willful suppression in the show cause notice in Form VAT 3054 dated O5lOBl2021 , the extended period of limitation of 6 years prescribed under Sec.2'l(S) of TVAT Act 2005 would not apply and the impugned penalty order of the 2nd respondent in Form VAT 203 dated 1810212022 is hopelessly time barred and set aside the same.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶21

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 all further proceedings including any recovery proceedings of the disputed tax in pursuance of the impugned penalty order of the 2nd respondent dated 18-02-2022 for the assessment years 2O15-16 to 2O1l-'lB under the TVAT Act 2005 pending disposal of the Writ Petition, as otherwise the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. BHASKAR REDDY VEM|REDDy

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K. RAJI REDDY,

¶24

SENIOR S.C. FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

./'/ /i

THEHON ,BLE

c JUSTICE B

AND

HONO LE MRs JUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA PETITION No. I3t24of 2

¶33

-.Oap==E!: (per the Hon,ble tirc Chrq Justtce U1lcrl Rltugan)

¶34

Heard Mr. Bhaskar Reddy Vemireddy, learned counsel for the petltioner and Mr. K.Raji Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel, Commercial Tax for the respondents

¶35

It is submitted that issue raised in this writ petition has been ansrvered by this Court in W.p.No.7B93 of 2O2Oand batch (M/s. Sri Sri Engineering Works v, sspuLDeput y Cu om r missioner (CT)) decided onos.o7.2o22.

¶36

Accordingly, the presenr Writ petition is allowed in terms of the aforesaid judgment' However, there shalr be no order as to costs.

¶37

Miscellaneous applications pending, ;1 any, sha, sta,d

closed.

SD-K.SREERAMA MURTHY

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

S ECTION OFFICER

To,

The Commercial Tax Officer,- Ramgopalpet_ Ranigun.l Circle, Begumpet _^{Division, Hyderabad,} State oi fetai"5il"'^''""'

¶45

Ihe Deputy Commercial Tax Oficeri lRevisions), O/o The Deputy

¶46

_^{Commissioner (CT), Bggumpet} Division, riyOtraOaO, State oiieilnoana 3. The Commissicine/or c5mnierc[i'ra;;;: &;;;;;;rt ;ii;i";;;;;:,," Namapally, Hyderabad.

¶47

The Princioal Secretary (Rev) (CT) Department. State of Telangana,

¶48

_^{Secretariat Buildings,HvOer#ao} 5. One CC to SRl. BHAS(AR REDDY vEN4tREDDy Advocate tOpUCl 6. One CC to Sri K. Raii Reddy, Senior S-C. toi-Commerciat Tax IOpUCI 7 rwo ccs to Gp ror iommeiciar rai. uish coi.t iii'inE'3trt?iJii"YriLrn" ,t Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶49