Remanded

M/s. Mining and Machinery Services v. Commercial Tax Officer and 3 others

Telangana HC15 Jun 2022WP/25213/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the appellate order dismissing the petitioner's VAT appeal due to lack of application of mind. The matter was remanded to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner for a fresh decision within 60 days after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned appellate order dated 25.01.2020 was set aside, and the matter remanded to the 2nd respondent for a fresh decision on the appeal after hearing the petitioner.

M/s. Mining and Machinery Services Vs Commercial… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE 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: 25213 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

It4/s. It4ining and Machinery Services, (represented by Ms. Kausalya Srinivasan, the legatee of the petitioner proprietary concern) H.No.10-2-'178, Flat No.201, Ahura lr,4azda Residency, West I,4aredpally, Secunderabad- 500 026.

¶9

,..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Commercial Tax Officer, (Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes), SD Circle, Secunderabad.

¶12

Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, 5th Floor, Commercial Taxes Department, C.T Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad- 500 001.

¶13

Deputy Commissioner (CT), FAC, Begumpet division, Secunderabad.

¶14

State of Telangana, (Represented by its Principal Secretary^(Revenue), Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶15

..,RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition Under Article 226 o'f 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 in nature of writ of certiorari to quash the Order No.'1 07 dt.25.01.2020^passed by the^2nd respondent in appeal and confirming the Revision Assessment Order No.39923 d|.21 .12.2017 of the^'1 st respondent, wrongly fastening the^{liabilityof VATof Rs.} 24,28,2561- under Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005^{for the periodfrom} April 2009 to October 2012 declarc the impugned orders as illegal,^arbitrary, without authority of law, without^{jurisdiction,} violative of^principles of^judicial discipline. and being violative of Articles 14 and 19(t Xg) and²⁶⁵ of^the Constitution of lnd ia.

¶17

l.A.NO:2 o F²⁰²²

¶18

Petition Un'ler^{Section 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{fileo in supiort iti'" p"iti""' i1"^1lion Court mav be pleasedto} stav the^{operatiorrof th" i;;;;;;J-dto"tNo '107 oizs ot 2o20 passedbv the} 2nd respondent^{ir appeat Jni"'"o"ti't"i"g ihe Revision Assessment order No'} 39923 dt.21^{.12.20170t tnelsl ,"rpona"it and_staythe barancerax demandof} Rs. 18,21,192/-^{urder T"l;s;;;;;r'"noa"oTax Act' 2005 for the period from} April 2009^{to October 2012'}

¶19

Counsel^{for the t'etitioner: SRI'YAMMANURU SlRl REDDY}

¶20

Counsel^{for the Re,spondents : SRI'K,RAJIREDDY, Sc FoR coMMERCIAL TAx} The Court^{madethe following ORDER}

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN}

¶22

AND

¶23

THE HONOURABLE MRS^{JUSTICE SUREPALLINANDA}

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.25213^of2022

¶25

ORDER:^(Per Hon'ble^{Srt Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)}

¶26

Heard Mr. C.V.Narasimham,^{learned counsel appearingon} behaif of Ms. Y.Siri^{Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner} and Mr. K.Raji Reddy,^{learned Senior Standing Counselfor} Commercial Tax^{for the respondents'}

¶27

By filing this^{petition under Article226 of the} Constitution of India,^{petitioner seeks quashing of order dated} 25.O1.2020^{passedby the 2"d respondent dismissing the appeal} filed by the petitioner'

¶28

Petitioner is a registered^{dealer under the Telangana} ValueAddedTaxAct,2005(brieflyreferredtohereinafterasthe VAT Act') engaged in^{the business of trading in Tungsten Carbie} Tips and Rod Dri11^{Bit Tips (Buttons)mostly importedfrom} China and selling to^{domesticclients For the assessment} feriod^{2oll-12 to 2014-15,petitionerwas assessedby the} assessing authority ie.,^{respondent No'l uide orderdated}

¶29

2 UB,J&SN,J W.P.No.25213 of 2022

¶30

21.12.2017. By the aforesaid order, turnover of the petitioner was asses,sed at Rs.1,12,07,336.00, on which the tax effect was quantified at Rs.24,28,256.00.

¶31

Aggrieved by the aJoresaid order dated 2l ,12.2017, petitioner preferred appeal before the 2",1 respondent under Section 3 [ of the VAT Act. By the impugned order, appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

¶32

We have perused the appellate order dated 25.01.2020. On a perusal of the aforesaid order, we find t1-rat 2"d respondent extracted the grounds of appeal filed by the petitioner Thereafter the 2"d respondent extracted the observatic,ns made by the assessing authority. Further appeilate authority noted that show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which petitioner had filed objection which was rejected by the assessing authority. Thereafter, the appeal was dismissed in the following manner:

¶33

"ln the present appeal a1so, except raising the con:entions, which were already considered by the Assiissing Authority, the appellant failed to substantiate suc.1 contentions with supporting documentary evidence so

¶34

UB,J&SN,J W.P.No.25213 of 2022

¶35

¶36

)

¶37

as to contradict the findings^{recorded by the Assessing} Authority. Further, the Assessing^{Authority before passing} the impugned orders,^{not only issued a show cause notice} rebutting its findings^{for proposing to ler'y of tax involving} the disputed tax^{herein,but also consideredthe objections} fi1ed by the appellant^{and conlirmedthe lely of tax as} proposed in the said notice.^{Thus, the claimsnow made by} the appellant, in the^{grounds of appeal and theirreiteration} by their Authorised^{Representative, duringthe course of} personal hearing, are found^{to beunsubstantiated'} Consequently, the appeal^{fails and isaccordingly} dismissed,"

¶38

We are afraid the approach^{of the appellateauthority} does not confirm to the^{standards expectedof an appellate} authority. Even while^{affirmingthe order of the assessing} authority, the order^{must indicate applicationof mind by the} appellate authority.^{The appellateauthoritymust apply its} mind to the contentions^{raisedby the appellantand decide the} same on the anvil of^{the lindings rendered by the assessing} authority. Unfortunately^{the same is lacking in the present case'}

¶39

7 . We accordingly set^{aside the impugned order dated} 25.01.2O2O and remand^{the matterback to the 2"d respondent} for a fresh decision^{on the appeal in accordancewith law'}

¶40

UB,J&SN,J W.P.No.25213 of 2022

¶41

¶42

Needless to say petitioner shall be^{afforded reasonable} opportunit'y of hearing by the 2"d^{respondent while deciding the} appeal. Lt:t the petitioner appear^before the^{2"drespondenton} 06.07.2o2tl, at 11.A.M., whereafter^{2nd respondentsha1lhear} and decide the appeal within a^{period of 60 days thereafter.}

¶43

Writ Petition is accordingly^disposed of.^Hor'r'ever, there shall be no order as to^costs.

¶44

g. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications^{pending, if}

¶45

any, in this Writ Petition, shal1^{stand closed.}

,=rr?'/i;t5!YXtR

//rRUE coPY/t llil

SECTION^OFFICER

to ,. -n" Comnrercial Tax Officer' (Assistant Commissioner of State^{Taxes)' SD} i ssion^{e r ( cr} ),ty "i?j,},J? rD, lii?t..:f,5]1%b

¶51

, ?[: t;:Uf, ffi "".m ' co.-tii&liut Taxes D'epartment' C T^{Complex' I} a. ?fll r"o'',^{Commissioner(CT)' FAC' B"qYTi"tDivision' secunderabad} S"t'.""tariit^{stateof relansana at}

¶52

4 The Princ^p'r '"t'"ii'i"[n]iu'il"i'

¶53

e $:^{ss ii 3 El lflY,t'#,'"l s FBR%fi i"s &ti"Lof f f l o' u c r}

¶54

Two^{CD OoPies}

B. One^{spar3 coPY}

S.A SW b^-

HIGH COUII.T

DATED:1510612022

166 STA r,e
oo)q 0 2 AUE 20'22
.l .! ,it
!rspr-rc 2

ORDER

WP.No.25213 ot 2022

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

tb\1\ 1,'/

M/s. Mining and Machinery Services v. Commercial Tax Officer and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Mining and Machinery Services v. Commercial Tax Officer 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

Mohammed Abdul Aleem Vs Punjab and Sind Bank

M/s Suresh Textiles Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation

M/ s. Yamsani Anjana and Co. Vs State Bank of India

M/s.Sree Krishna Enterprises Vs Commercial Tax Officer and 3 others

Sri. Srikanth Reddy Kasu Vs Bank of India

Gambhirapuram Ramchandra Rao Vs M/s. Canara Bank