Allowed

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

Telangana HC15 Jun 2022WP/25517/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner company challenged the Appellate Deputy Commissioner's order dismissing an appeal against VAT assessment, claiming lack of application of mind. The High Court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision with an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dismissed appeal dated 25.01.2020 was set aside and matter remanded to 2nd respondent for fresh decision within 60 days.

M/s.Sree Krishna Enterprises Vs Commercial Tax… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶2

WEDNESDAY,^{THE FIFTEENTHDAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE^{SRIJUSTICEUJJALBHUYAN} AND THE HON'BLE^{MRSJUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA}

¶5

W ITP TITI NN :25 17 0F²⁰²²

¶6

Between:

¶7

tvl/s.Sree Krishna^{Enterprises, (represented by its proprietors' Raghavendra)} Plot No.96, 1st^{Floor,s;;h;;["i;-c;-op6rativeHousingSocietv'East} tvlaredpallY,^Secunderabad

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Commercial^{Tax Officer (Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes)' SD Circle'} Secunderabad

¶11

ADoellate^{Deputy Commissioner(CT)' Punlagutta Division' sth Floor'} ' 36fi"r?iiirii;i6 D";;,fi;ni, d i io'piui' Namparrv'^{Hvderabad- 500} 001

¶12

Deputy^{Commissioner(CT)' FAC' Begumpet Division' Secunderabad}

¶13

State of^{Telangana, (Represented by its Principal Secretary (Revenue)'} Secretariat'^HYderabad

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under^{Article 226 of the Constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstancesStatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith'theHighCourtmaybe pleasedtoissueanappropriatewrit'order';ordirectioninnatureofwritofcertiorari to^quash the^{Order No.105dt.25 O1 2020 passed by the 2nd respondent in appeal} andconfirmingtheRevisionAssessmentorderNo.3gS2Sdt'21.12.2017ofthe,1St respondent,^{wrongly fastening the liability of VAT of Rs 1'78'31'589/-under} Telangana Value^{Added Tax Act' 2005 for the period from April 2009 to October} 2Ol2and.declaretheimpugnedordersasillegal'arbitrary'withoutauthorityof law, without^{jurisdiction, violative of principles of judicial discipline'and being} violative of Articles^{14 and1 9(1} )(g)^{and 265 of the Constitutionof lndia'}

¶16

IA NO:^{2oF 2022}

¶17

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{filedin support of tne petition, tne Hign-court may be pleasedto stay} the operalion^{of the impugi"i Oio"' No105 dt2501 2020 passed by the 2nd} ;;;p;;l";f i.^{appeatanoio-nfirming tne Revision.Assessmen(order No 39828} d1.21 .12.2017^{of the 1st} '"tp"'J"""t,^{an! stry the balance tax demand of} nir',iizJ,oag/-^{under retang;naValue Added Tax Act' 2oo5 for the period from} April 2009^{to October 2012}

¶18

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRIC'V'NARASIMHAMfor Ms'Y' SlRl REDDY}

¶19

Counsel forthe^{Respondents:SRIK'RAJI REDDY'SG for CT}

¶20

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶21

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN}

¶22

AND

¶23

THE HONOURABLE^{MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLINANDA}

¶24

WRIT PETITIO^N No.25517^{of 2022}

¶25

OADEB:^(Per Hon'ble^{Sn Juslice Ulal Bhugan)}

¶26

Heard Mr. C.V.Narasimham,^{learned counsel appearing} on behalf of Ms.^{Y. Siri Reddy, learned counsel for the} petitioner and Mr. K.Raji^{Reddy,learned SeniorStairding} Counsel for Commercial^{Tax for the respondents'}

¶27

By filing this^{petition under Article 226 of the} Constitution of^{India, petitioner seeks quashing of order} dated 25.01.2020^{passed by the 2"d respondent dismissing} the appeal filed^{by the petitioner.}

¶28

Petitioner is a^{registered dealerunder the} Telangana Value^{Added Tax Act, 2005(briefly referredto} hereinafter as^{the VAT Act') engaged in the business of} trading in Tungsten^{Carbie Tips and Rod Drill Bit Tips}

¶29

(Buttons) mostly imported^{from China and sellingto domestic} client9., For the^{assessmentperiod2OO9-10 lo 2O12-l*a}

¶30

2 UB,J&SN,J W.P. No.2551 7 of 2022

¶31

petitioner was assessed by the assessing authority i.e., respondent No. 1 uide order dated 21. L2.2017 . By the aforesaid order, turnover of the petitioner was assessed at Rs.39,88,54,406.00, on which the tax effect was quantified at Rs. 1,78,31,589.00.

¶32

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 21 .72.2O17 , petitioner preferred appeal before the )rc) respondent under Section 31 of the VAT Act. By the impugned order, appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissecl.

¶33

We have perused the appellate order dated 25.01 .2020. On a perusal of the aforesaid order, u'e find that 2"d respondent extracted the grounds of appeal filed by the petitioner. Thereafter the 2"d respondent extracted the observations made by the assessing authority. Further appellate authority noted that show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, to which petitioner had filed objection which \'as rejected by the assessing authority. Thereafter, the appeal was dismissed in the following manner:

¶34

UB,J&SN,J W.P.No.2s517 of 2022

¶35

¶36

"In the^{present appeal also, except raisingthe} contentions, which were^{alreadyconsidered by'th"} Assessing Authority, the appellant^{failed to substantiate} such contentions with supporting^{documentarJz evidence} so as to contradict the^{findingsrecorded by the} Assessing Authority. Further, the^{AssessingAuthority} before passing the impugned^{orders, not only issueda} show cause notice rebutting^{its findings for proposingto} lely of tax involving the disputed^{tax herein, butalso} considered the objections^filed by^{the appellantand} confirmed the lely of tax as^{proposed in the saidnotice.} Thus, the claims now made^{by the appellant, in the} grounds of appeal and their reiteration^bytheir Authorised Representative, during^{the course of personal} hearing, are found to be unsubstantiated.^{Consequently,} the appeal fails and is^{accordingly dismissed."}

¶37

We are afraid the approach^{of the appellate} authority does not confirm to^{the standardsexpectedof an} appellate authority. Even^{while affirmingthe order of the} assessing authority, the order^{must indicate applicationof} mind by the appellate authority.^{The appellate authority} must apply its mind to^{the contentions raised by the} appellant and decide the^{same on the anvil of the findings} rendered by the assessing authority'^{Unfortunately the same} is lacking in the^present case.

¶38

4 UB,J&SN,J W.P.No.25517 of 2022

¶39

We accordingly set aside the impr.igned order dated 25.0 1 .2O2O and remand the matter back to the 2na respondent for a fresh decision on the appeal in accordance with law. Needless to say petitioner shall be afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing by the 2n.l respondent while deciding the appeal. Let the petitioner appear before the 2"arespondent on 06.07.2022 at I LA.M., whereafter 2n.l respondent shall hear and decide the appeal within a period of 60 days thereafter.

¶40

B. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶42

SD/.N.CHANDRA^SEKHARRAO ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶43

,, lr"

¶44

,TRUE COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶45

To,

¶46

The Appellate^{Deputy Commissioner(CT)' Punj.agutta Division'5th Floor'} Commerciat f ares^{Oep#m""i'6.i' C"rpfei, i'lairpatly.Hyderabad-500} 001

¶47

One CC^{to Ms.Y.SlRlREDDY,Advocate[OPUC]}

¶48

One CC^{to SRIK'RAJI REDDY, SC for CT [OPUC]}

¶49

Two C.D.^CoPies

¶50

One SPare^CoPY.

¶51

MRC

¶52

=,=-^n.,:M-'

¶53

HIGH COURT DATED:15/06/2022

¶54

U RGENT

¶55

ORDER

¶56

WP.No.25517^{oi 2022}

¶57

1 rrE SrAr ij
.L<br>..1,
q r
O B JUL 2022 l)7.
ait
': ,f,ar !'.qi C tr

¶58

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRITPETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶59

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Sree Krishna Enterprises 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

Statutes considered

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. Mining and Machinery Services Vs Commercial Tax Officer and 3 others

Sri. Srikanth Reddy Kasu Vs Bank of India

Gambhirapuram Ramchandra Rao Vs M/s. Canara Bank