Allowed

M/s B.S. Enterprises v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Telangana HC22 Jul 2022WP/14625/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court allowed a Writ Petition challenging an appellate order dated 04.03.2020 passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner for alleged violation of principles of natural justice due to lack of personal hearing. The order was set aside and remanded for de novo hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 04.03.2020 set aside; appeal restored; matter remanded to 2nd respondent for fresh hearing with personal hearing to petitioner.

M/s B.S. Enterprises Vs The State of Telangana… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 14625 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s B.S. Enterprises, Dharamkaram Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500 016. Represented by its Partner, M.Subba Reddy.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Telangana Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad

¶13

The Commercial Tax Officer^(Audit), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Assistant Commissioner^(State Tax), Panjagutta Circle, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^High Court^maybe pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings Passed by the^2nd Respondent dated 04.03.2020, without^granting an opportunity of^personal hearing as contemplated under Section 31(a) of the^{TVATAct, 2005,as illegal,} improper, unlust, vrolative of Principles of Natural Justice^and consequently^set aside the Proceedings of the 2nd respondent and^{grant such other relief or} reliefs as are deemed fit and^proper under the circumstances of^{the case and} pass orders in accordance with the law after duly hearing the Petitioner.

¶17

l.A.NO:1 OF 2022

¶18

Petition Under Section 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High Court may be pleased to} grant stay of collection of the disputed lnput Tax of Rs.3,94,9981-,^pending disposal of the writ^petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.SHAIK JEELANI BASHA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR COMMERCIAL^TAX

¶21

The Court made the following ORDER

¶22

¶23

¶24

THE; HON^,BLE THE CHIEF JUSTIC E UJJAL BHIIYAN

¶25

AND

¶26

THE HONOURAB LE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NAN DA

¶27

WRIT PETITION No. 14625 of 2O22

¶28

ORDER: per the Hon'ble the Chtef Justice ujjal Bhugan)

¶29

Heard Mr. B.Siddharth ReCdy, learned counsel representing Mr. Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner and llr. K.Raji Redd1,, learned Senior Standing Counsel, Commercial Ta-r for the respondents.

¶30

By liling this petition under Articl e 226 of tlte Constitution of india, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 04.A3.2(t2O passecl by the !"a respondent.

¶31

Be it stated that petitioner is a works contractor using ce.ramic tiles, glaze tiles etc., in the works contracts executed by him. Petitioner is registered under the^.I.elangana Value AcldeC Tax Act, 2OO5 (briefly referred to hereinaJter as - the VAT Act') as^.r,,ell as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1955. li"l respondcnt had passecl assessment order dated <sup>16.04.2Ci8lor the itssessmcnr period2017-201g(upro Ju.,e, :-

¶32

2 HC] & SNJ W.P.No.14625 of 2022

¶33

rejecting the claim olthe petitioner vdth regar.cl to claim of input tax credit as well as claim of c:;ernption on sale of goods. Consequently, tax liability oir a turnover cf Rs.26,55. 1 59.O0 was imposed.

¶34

Aggrievcd by the aforesaid ci.ier, petitioner filed appeal before the 2"d respondent under. Slcction 30(1) of the VAT Act. By the order dated 04.03.202C,, 2n,i respondent as the Appellate Authority rejected the appcal and affirmed tlie order of the 3.d respondent.

¶35

it is this order dated 04.03.2.020 rvhich is under impugnment in the present proceeding.

¶36

The challenge has been made on the ground that the Appeliate Authority had not granted any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner while dismissing his appeal.

¶37

Learned counsel for the respondents sought for time on 13.O7.2022 to obtain instructions.

¶38

\ B. Today when the matter is cal1ed upon for hearing, I Mr K.Raji Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents fairlv /

¶39

HC,T& SNJ W.P.No. 11625 of 2022

¶40

¶41

submits that the appellate order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the lile of the 2nd responde:nt for hearing the appeal afresh.

¶42

In view of the fair stand taken, impugned order dated 04.03.2020 passed by the 2.d respondent is set aside. Consequr-.ntly appeal of the petitioner before the 2d respondent is restored. petitioner shall appear before the 2.d respondent on 24.08.2022 at LO.3O A.M. whereafter 2nd respondent shail proceed with the appea_l in accordance with 1aw and pass appropriate order after complying with the principlesi of natural justice.

¶43

1 0. Writ Petition is accordingly allorved Hort,ever,

¶44

there shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

11 l{iscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petit on shall stand ciosed.

¶46

¶47

¶48

The Saifabad, PrinciPal^{(itateSecretary,} of Telanga^Revenue na missioneat^HYdDePr erabad.^{(CT), artment, P} unjagutta^{Telangana Secretariat'Division, HYderabad} 2. The APP^{ellate DeP} uty Com (By SPec^{i;rl Messenger)}

¶49

.) The Comn lercial^{Tax Officer (Audit),PunjaguttaDivision, HYderabad} Stateof

¶50

4 The Assislant^{Commissioner (StateTax),Paniag uttaCircle, Hyderabad.} 5 Two CCS,:O^{GPFOR COMME RCIALTAX , HighCourt for the} Telang antr at^HYder abad. IK JEELANI[OUT]^{BASHA Advocate IOPUCI}

¶51

6 One CC to SRI.SHA 1 Two^C D CoPies One^s qarjJryy

*d:€a.re--

HIGH COUITT

DATED:2210712022

ORDER

1 n? STAT-A
( t)
03 Hlft 2[n
-t:
,r:{i

¶57

WP.No.14625 of 2022

¶58

ALLO\l'I\G THI]^\1'.P

¶59

\'I'THOL'I' COSI'S.

¶60

<br>/-1--.-

M/s B.S. Enterprises v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s B.S. Enterprises v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Forest Officer Nirmal, Adilabad District. Vs Sollu Narasaiah

Sri Veera Hanuman Devalayam Cheruvu Vs The State of Telangana

State Bank of India Vs Union of India and 3 others

The Depot Manager Vs a.Sankar

Padige Nageswara Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Syed ZainulAbedin Vs Ahsan Ali Khan