Dismissed

M/s. Sri Shakti Resorts and Hotels Limited v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Apr 2022WP/16121/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an impugned tax assessment order for lack of jurisdiction and limitation. The Court noted that while the petitioner claimed non-service, the assessment order was served on the petitioner's Financial Controller. The Court held that failure to communicate receipt to the petitioner was an internal matter and dismissed the petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed; there shall be no order as to costs.

M/s. Sri Shakti Resorts and Hotels Limited Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^{TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 16121 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/s. Sri Shakti Resorts and Hotels Limited, having its Office at^Adjacent to Airport Exit Road, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500016. Represented by its Chief Financial Officer, Mr C. Chandra Sekhara Prasad,

¶8

...PETTTTONER(S)

¶9

AND

¶10

State of Telangana, Rep. by Prl. Secretary, Rev CT Department, Secretariat Building Hyderabad.

¶11

Commercial Tax Officer, Begumpet Circle , Vth Floor, Pavani Prestige, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or writ or direction, more preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Assessment Order dt. 2910212016 in A.A. Order No.743B passed by the Respondent No.2 as illegal, unfair, as not being served to the^petitioner company in accordance with law and thereby being barred by limitation, lacking^jurisdiction and as being contrary to law.

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶15

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 an interim stay of all further proceedings including consequential recovery proceedings in pursuance of the impugned Assessment Order dated 2910212016 in A.A. Order No.7438 issued by the 2nd Respondent herein.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T.PRADYOTH

¶17

Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL^BHTIYITN AND THE HONOUF'd.BLE MRS JUSTICE^{SUREPALLINANDA}

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.1612L of 2022

¶21

QBDER:^{(Per Hol'ble Si JusticeUjjal Bhugan)}

¶22

Heard Mr.'l.Pradyoth, learned^{counselfor the petrtioner} and Mr. L.Venk;rteshwar Rao, learned Standing^Coun;elfor Commercial Tax for the respondents.

¶23

In ortr order dated 3O.O3.2O22 we had^surnmed up the grievanct: of the petitioner, relevant^portionof 'vhich rea<ls as under:

¶24

"Grievance of the^petitioner is that^impugned assessment order dated 29.02.2076 was never^served upon the petitioner and therefore,^{petitioner was not} aware of the same. Only when representative of^tJre petitioner had visited the o{Iice of the 2"d respondent for some other work on 1O.O3.2O22, copy of the said assessment order was handed over to him. Respondents are now insisting on immediate^payment of the demand as per the sard order.

¶25

Mr.Venkateshwar Rao, Iearned counsel for the respondents to produce ttre relevant file relating to service of assessment order on the petitioner on O4.O4.2O22.

¶26

,/ Till 04 .O4.2O22, respondents shall not act upon^the assessment order dated 29.O2.2O 16."

¶27

2 UB,J&SN,J W.P.No.16121 of 2022

¶28

Thereafter, when the matter was taken up on 11.04.2022 Mr.Rao had produced the record in original, whereafter the following order came to be passed:

¶29

"Today, when the matter is called upon, Mr.Venkateshwar Rao has produced the record in original, where from he points out that notice of assessment dated 22.01.2O16 itself was received by Mr.Kiral Kumar, Financial Controller on behalf of the petitioner or 22.01.2016 itself. Copy of the assessment order dated 29.02.2076 was received by the said Mr.Kiran Kumar on 29.02.2076.

¶30

If that be the position, contention of the petitioner that it was never served with a copy of the assessment order prior to 1O.O3.2O22 may not be correct. If the petitioner has made incorrect statement on oath, it should be prepared to face the consequences.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner to obtain instructions.

¶32

List on 79.04 .2022 as t}:e first item."

¶33

Today, Mr.T.Pradyoth, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Mr.Kiran Kumar, Financial Controller is no longer in the service of the Company, having left in the year 2016. Therefore, petitioner had no knowledge about service of the notice as well as of assessment order. "/

¶34

3 UB,J&SN,J W.P.No.16121^{oJ 2022}

¶35

Be that^{as itmay, the fact that notice of} assessmentdated22.ol.2016wasreceivedbyMr.l'iran Kumar is^{not in dispute' Copy of the assessment order} date<l 29.02'2016^{was also served upon Mr'Kiran Kumztr on} 29.0'2.2016.^{IfMr.Kiran Kumar had not informed the} petitioner about^{receipt of such notice and of assesstnent} order, it is^{an intt:rnal matter of the petitioner'}

¶36

That treing the^{position, Court is not inclint:dto} entertain the^{writ petitionfiled so belatedly'However'} having regard^{to the submissions made'Court is not} inclined to^{imPose anY costs.}

¶37

Consequently,^{the Writ Petition is dismi:;sed'}

¶38

However, there^{shall be no orderas to costs'}

¶39

As a sequel,^{miscellaneousapplicationspen ling'}

¶40

if any, in this^{Writ Petition, sha1lstand closed'}

¶41

ANSARI sD/-MoHDissffiuNtilE GISTRAR

¶42

¶43

//TRUE^COPY' SECTIC^{N OFFICER}

¶44

To, 1. s ta e^or to' tn " 2. ?ffi 33 Jf,ILT',HPJSI,I;^{**lT:E J:'!'Uf to} "t Telangana. [OUT] Two C.D.^CoPies Oner SPare^CoPY MR,l BS V

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910412022

ORDER

WP.No.16121^{of 2022}

¶49

DISMISSING^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶50

,..: _.-t:<br>1 a',
i
f
ool 0 [ sEP ?[2
O
>b>>-

M/s. Sri Shakti Resorts and Hotels Limited v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Sri Shakti Resorts and Hotels Limited v. State of Telangana

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

Vyshnavi Sai Lakshmi Vs The Union India and 2 others

M/s. Khazana Jewellery Private Limited Vs Additional Commissioner (St) Grade-I and 3 others

Smt Mende Sathamma Vs State Bank of India

M/s Navanatha Educational Society Vs The Income Tax Officer

Harish Ganapathi Js Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer

M/s A.K Iron Traders Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)