Remanded

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

Telangana HC16 Jun 2022WP/25730/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court set aside an appellate order under the VAT Act that merely confirmed an assessing authority's decision without applying its own mind. The court remanded the matter to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner for a fresh decision within 60 days after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned appellate order dated 25.01.2020 and remand the matter to the 2nd respondent for a fresh decision on the appeal after hearing within 60 days.

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

THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH^{DAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN} AND THE HONOURABLE^{MRS JUSTICESUREPALLINANDA}

¶5

WRIT PETIT^{ION NO: 2573 0 0F 2022}

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/s. Mining and^{Machinery Services,(re.O191e11e!} ^9L^{y:,^ KausnalYa} SiinirrJan, in" r"gui;"^{;i inJ p"liiione|.froprietaryconcern)H.No.10-2-178,} Firil.ro.zoi,^{nr,uri Hia'zia'i;Jd;;;r.Wesi tr/aredpallv' secunderabad-500} 026

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

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

¶11

2 Appellate Deputy^{Commissioner (C-T),Pun.iaguttaDivision' Sth Floor'} -^^ 'C6"r-ri, ri i, if iL = b e^p a.t.^{e ni' c. r b o m pi eI,N a m p atI} v,^{H vd e rab a d - 5 0 0} "

¶12

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith,the High courtmay be} pleased to issue an appropriate^{writ, order or directionin natureof writ of} certiorari to^{quashthe Order No.10B dt.25'1'2020 passed by the 2nd respondent} in appeal and^{confirming the Penalty OrderNo S40T dt'21 '22019of the lst} respondent,^{wrongly fastening the liability of VAT penalty of Rs'6'07'064/- under} Telangana^{Value AddedTax Act, 2005 for the periodfrom January 2011 to May} 20l5andtodeclaretheimpugnedordersasillegal'arbitrary'wlthoutauthorityof law, without^{jurisdiction, violative of principlesof judicial discipline'and being} violative of Articles^{14 and 19(1 )(g) and 265 of the Constitutionof lndia'}

¶17

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶18

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} stay the operation of the impugned Order No.10B^{d1.25.1.2020 passed by the} 2nd respondent in appeal and confirming the Penalty Order^No.8407 d1.21 .2.2019 of the 1st respondent, and stay the balance tax^{demand of} Rs.4,55,2981 under Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005 for the^period January 2O11 to May 201 5.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.V.NARASIMHAM for^{Ms. Y. SlRl REDDY}

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K.RAJI REDDY,^{SC for CT}

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEUJJALBHTIYAN}

¶23

AND

¶24

THE HONOURABLE^{MRSJUSTICD SUREPALLI NANDA} WRIT PETITION^{No.25730of 2022}

¶25

ORDER:^{(PerHon'ble Si Justice Ujjal 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 SeniorStanding} Counsel for^{Commercial Tax for the respondents'}

¶27

By filing^{this petitionunder Article 226 of the} Constitutionoflndia,petitionerseeksquashingoforder dated 25.01'2020^{passedby the 2'd respondentdismissing} the appeal^{filed by the petitioner'}

¶28

Petitioner^lsa registered^{dealer under the} Telangana^{Value AddedTax Act'2005 (brieflY referred to} hereinafter^{as the VATAct') engagedin thebusinessof} trading^{in Tungsten Carbie Tips and Rod Drill Bit Tips} (Buttons)^{mostlyimported from China and selling to domestic} -clients.^{For the assessment period 2OLt-12 to 2014-15'}

¶29

2 UB,J&SN,J W.P.No.2573O of 2022

¶30

petitioner was assessed by the assessing authority i.e., respondent No. 1 uide order dated 2l .12.2017 . By the aloresaid order, turnover of the petitioner \ras assessed at Rs. 1, 12,07,336.00, on which the tax effect s,as quantified at Rs.24,28,256.00.

¶31

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 21.12.2017, petitioner preferred appeal before the 2nd respondent under Section 31 of the VAT Act. By the impugned order, appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

¶32

¶33

We have perused the appellate order dated 25.01.2020. On a perusal of the aforesaid order, we find that 2"d respondent extracted the grounds of appeal filed by the petitioner. Thereafter the 2nt 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 was rejected by the assessing authority. Thereafter, the appeal was dismissed in the following manner:

¶34

UB,J&SN,J W.P.No.25730 of 2022

¶35

¶36

¶37

"ln the present appeal also,^{exceptraising the} contentions, which were already considered by^the Assessing Authority, the appellant failed to^substantiate such contentions with supporting documentary^evidence so as to contradict the flndings^{recordedby the} Assessing Authority. Further, the^{AssessingAuthority} before passing the impugned orders,^{not only issued a} show cause notice rebutting^{its findings for proposingto} levy of tax involving the disputed^{tax herein, but also} considered the objections filed by the^appellantand confirmed the lely of tax as^{proposedin the said notice.} Thus, the claims now made by the^{appellant, in the} grounds of appeal and their reiteration by^their Authorised Representative, during the course^{of personal} hearing, are found to be^{unsubstantiated.} Consequently, the appeal fails and is^accordingly dismissed."

¶38

We are afraid the approach of the^appellate authority does not confirm to^{the standardsexpected of an} appellate authority. Even while aifirming^{the 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 assessingauthority' Unfortunatelythe same} is lacking in^the Present^case'

¶39

¶40

UB,J&SN'J W.P.No.25730^{of 2022}

¶41

¶42

¶43

T.Weaccordinglysetasidetheimpugnedorder dated^{25.01.2O2O and remand the matter back to the 2na} respondent^{for a freshdecisionon the appear in accordance} say Petitioner^{shal1 be afforded} with law'^Needlessto of hearing^{bY the 2"d respondent} reasonable^oPPortunitY Let the Petitioner^{appea-r before} while^{deciding the aPPeal'} the 2ndrespondent^{on 06'07'2022 at 11'A'M" wherea-fter2"d} respondent^{shall hear and decide the appeal within a peri.od} of 60^{daYs thereafter'}

¶44

B Writ Petition^{is accordinglydisposed of'} However,

¶45

there^{shall be no order as to costs'}

¶46

9 As a^{sequel, miscellaneous applicati'ons pending'}

¶47

¶48

if anY,^{in this Writ Petition'shali stand closed}

sD/-N1Sl3#I?'#[€,813

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

'"',u"##i5,?"r-""g,y"ff il#ii'H?'331;!il1?3H[?ov:iii"ot':il:5]"&lt

¶53

tt?s:'s+?3Hsh i, ?* Ei,il$Ltsi,1?%%"v 5. One^SPareCoPY' MRC BS

HIGH COURT

DATE D : 1 610612022

URGENT

1 $E STA 14:
o^
e ('
:) I
ot) O B JUL 2022 az
J:
t +
-!:snarc .t:',

¶58

ORDER

¶59

WP.No.25730 of 2022

¶60

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶61

¶62

LL.-,-

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

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

Sri. Srikanth Reddy Kasu Vs Bank of India

M/s Ani Technologies Privat Limited Vs State of Telangana and 4 Others

M/s Ani Technologies Private Limited Vs State of Telangana and 4 Others

M/s Ani Technologies Private Limited Vs State of Telangana