Allowed

M/s. Knr Constructions Limited v. Assistant Commissioner(Ct) Audit

Telangana HC14 Jul 2022WP/13634/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition declaring the Telangana Value Added Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 2017 unconstitutional. Consequently, the assessment order relying on the impugned amendment was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was allowed, the 2017 Amendment Act was declared unconstitutional, and the assessment order dated 20.05.2021 was quashed.

M/s. Knr Constructions Limited Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH 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

WRIT PETITION NO: 13634 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

li/l/s. KNR Constructions Limited, KNR House, 3rd and 4th Floor ,Plot No.114, Phase-'l ,Kavuri Hills,Hyderabad-s00 033. Rep. by its General Manager-Finance and Accounts, Sri K.Venkata Ram Rao, S/o.K.Srinivas Rao, Occ. General Manager (F and A)' Fl/o Hyderabad

¶8

..pETrroNER

¶9

AND

¶10

AssistantCommissioner(CT)Audit, Punjagutta Diviston, Hyderabad

¶11

DeputyCommissioner(CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad

¶12

Additional Commissioner(ST), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue^(ST), Secretariat' Hyderabad'

¶14

...RES'.NDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of India^praying that^{in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to:

¶16

a) issue a writ, direction or order especially in the nature of a^{writ of} mandamus declaring the^provisions of Act No.26 of 2017^{publishedin the Gazette} on 0211212017 in so far as it seeks to amend the^{provisions of a repealed act as} being void, illegal, unlaMul, without authority, without^{legislativecompetence,} violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of^{India contrary to the provisions of the} Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and as lacking^{in jurisdiction.}

¶17

b) declaring the^provisions of Act No.26^{of 2O17 published in the Gazetteon} 0211212017 in so far as it seeks to amend the^{provisionsof a repealed act.}

¶18

c) set aside the assessment order A.O.No.47896^{dated 2010512021 passed} by the Respondent No.1.

¶19

il2il

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the^{circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High^{Court may be pleasedto stay} all proceeding including collection of tax^{pursuantto the assessmentorder} A.O.No.47896 daled^{201O512021passed} by the^{RespondentNo.1.} Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. M NAGA DEEPAK

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI L. VENKATESWAR^RAO, S.C. FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

I I

¶25

THE HO N'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL^BHUYAN

¶26

AND

¶27

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SURE^PALLINANDA

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.13634 of 2O2l

¶29

ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the^{Chief Justice Ujjal Bhugan)}

¶30

Heard Mr. Naga Deepak, learned^{counselfor the petitioner} and Mr. L.Venkateswar Rao, learned^{Standing Counsel,} Commercial Tax for the respondents.

¶31

Challenge made in this writ^{petition is tothe} assessment order dated 20.O5.2021^{passed by the 1"t respondent'} However, the main relief^{soughtfor is to declare Telangana Value} Added Tax (Second Amendment)^{AcL,2017 as unconstitutional'}

¶32

Issue raised in this writ^{petition is squarelycovered by} the decision rendered by this^{Court in W'P.No.7893 of 2O2Oand} batch (M/s. Sri Sri^{EngineeringWorks v.Deputy} Commissioner^(CTl) decided^{on O5.O7.2022.}

¶33

4 Therefore, the^{presentWrit Petition standsallowedin} terms of the aforesaid decision.

¶34

l 11(' .r ,. S,<sup>i li . F. N.). ,'. itij'l^r)/ li)-ⁱ

¶35

In consecluence,^{if the petitiotrerseeks anv refrjn'J of} tax collecte,.l on^{the sirengtl-t ol the impugnedassessnlent ()rcier} which novg stands^{quashed, it rvoulCbe open to the petitiorlerto} file appropriate^{application before the assessing authoritJv fcr} refund. If such^{applicationis filed' assessingauthority shall do} the rreedlui^{irL accordancevrith law'}

¶36

6 Miscellaneous applications^{pending, if any, in this Writ} Petition shall^standclosed. Hor.r'ever, there^{sl-rall be no order as 1o}

¶37

.,/

¶38

COStS.

¶39

SD/.N.RAJAGOPAL ASSISTANT GIS

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTIO FFICER

To,

i,li'a;fr^{g$lff lj-i,;lk='rfEi'$"'ls#Jm,'iffi ,"}

¶44

¶45

'E'"1"1t?s$,,y$i}.D*::Elxagx%i'3:J:I"y3l,.*",.cia,raxOne CC^{to Sri L. Venkal}

¶46

,. lo'IJ"%,^{to GP for Commercial Tax'High Court forthe Stateof} ' iJru"gu", at Hyderabad' [oUT]

¶47

Two CD^CoPies

¶48

One^{SPare CoPY}

CHR

HIGH COURT

DATED:1410712022

ORDER

C
[\g Ntt
1

W.P.No.13634 of 2021

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

M/s. Knr Constructions Limited v. Assistant Commissioner(Ct) Audit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Knr Constructions Limited v. Assistant Commissioner(Ct) Audit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Krishna Reddy, Vs The Joint Collector

M/s. Indu projects Limited Vs The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Itat)

M/s. Victor Logistics Pvt, Ltd. Vs Asst. Commissioner (St)

S.M.P.M. Hashmi Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Knr Constructions Limited Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner(Ct)

Central Power Distribution Company of a.P.Ltd., Vs M/s.Shreya Pet (P) Ltd.