Dismissed

Mahindra Logistics Limited v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and 4 Others

Telangana HC11 Apr 2022WP/3291/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an appellate order under the Telangana VAT Act. The Court held that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy via appeal to the Tribunal and the challenge to a Rule did not justify judicial intervention.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed directing the petitioner to file appeal before the Tribunal if intending to challenge the Rule.

Mahindra Logistics Limited Vs Deputy… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

IVIONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 3291 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Mahindra Logistics Limited, Rep. by its Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Yogesh Patel, 6-3-1089/F Level-2, RVR Towers, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyd.erabafli.a

¶8

AND

¶9

Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Maredpally Circle, Begumpet Division, Hyderabad.

¶10

Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad.

¶11

Assistant Commissioner (CT), Audit, Begumpet Division, Hyderabad. 4. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, State of Telangana, Hyderabad -500 001.

¶12

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (CT-ll) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the Order No.1295 daled 2911012021 passed by the Respondent No.2 rejecting the appeal filed by the Petitioner against the assessment order dated 0710112021 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, contrary to the provisions of the TVAT Act and set-aside the same and further direct the Respondents to refrain from taking any further proceedings or steps in furtherance of and/ or in implementation of the Order no.1295 dated 2911012O21 and for recovery of total disputed tax.

¶15

il2t/

¶16

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

Petition under section i sl cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of recovery of the disputed tax of Rs.13,gB,BB,0Bg/_, pending disposal of the writ Petition, as otherwise the petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.V.A. SIVA KARTIKEYA FOR SRI. S. VIVEK CHANDRA SEKHAR

¶19

Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI K. RAJI REDDY,

¶20

SENIOR S.C. FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

I \

¶23

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^UJJALBHIIYAN And HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.329l of 2022

¶25

ORDER:( Per Hon'ble Sri Justice^UjjalBhuyan)

¶26

Heard Sri A.V.A.Siva^{Kartikeya, learned counsel representing} Sri S.Vivek Chandrasekhar,^{learned counselfor the petitionerand} Mr.K.Raji Reddy, learned^{SeniorStanding Counselfor Commercial} Tax, for respondents.

¶27

Challenge made in this writ^{petition is to the order dated} 29 .lO.2O2l passed by the appellate^{Deputy Commissioner} (Commercial Tax), Punjagutta Division,^{Hyderabaddismissingthe} appeal filed by the^{petitioner against the assessment orders dated} O7.O1 ,2021 passed by the Deputy^{CommercialTax Officer-I,} Maredpally Circle, Hyderabad for^{the tax periods20 15- I 6 and} 2Ol7-18 (up to June, 2017)^{under the Telangana ValueAddedTax} Act, 20O5 (briefly, 'the TVAT^{Act' hereinafter).}

¶28

On 25.01.2022, following order^{was passed:}

¶29

' Mr.K.Raji Reddy,^{learned Special Standing} Counsel for Commercial Tax Department,^{has stated} before this Court that there is an altemative^remedy of appeal.

¶30

However, as the arguing counsel is^{down with} COVID- 19, the hearing of the case is^deferred."

¶31

{ {

¶32

Learned Standing Counsel submits that under Section 33 of the TVAT Act, an appeal lies to the Telangana Value Added Tax Tribunal. On a query of the Court as to why petitioner has not availed appeal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first appellate authority had overlooked violation of Rule 17-A (d) of the Telangana Value Added Tax Rules, ,O05 and on that basis it has dismissed the appeal. Even if petitioner files appeal before the Tribunal, Tribunal will also follow the aforesaid provision. On a further query of the Court, he submits that as on date, petitioner has not challenged the vires of Rule I 7-A (d). If that be the position, we see no good ground to entertain the writ petition, when evidently, petitioner has alternative remedy under the statute.

¶33

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to file appeal before the Tribunal and if such appeal is filed, the same may be considered in accordance with law.

¶34

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pendirlg in this writ

¶35

petition shall stand closed.

¶36

¶37

SD/-MOHD.SANAULLAH^ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 'TRUE^coPY// sEcrtoN oFFtcER

¶38

To, \

¶39

1 One CC to Sri S.^{Vivek Chandra Sekhar,Advocate IOPUC-I} 2 o;; CC io sri k. Raii^{Reddy, SeniorS'C' fo-r Commercial.Tax [OPUC]} - - - ^. 3 Two CCs to GP for Commeicial^{Tax, High Court for the State ol I elangana at} Hyderabad. [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies One Spare Copy CHR MMA !v.-

\ \

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 110412022

ORDER

W.P.No.3291 of 2022

$E ST lLa
<br>I r) 2 6 Jl]L ?[2?
-:

¶46

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶47

o
.v"

Mahindra Logistics Limited v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahindra Logistics Limited v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and 4 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

M/s International Construction Co. Vs The Assistant Commissioner(St)

M/s Mrr Bar and Restaurant Vs Piramal Captial and Housing Finance

The Asst. Engineer (Operations) Vs Madavi Drupatha Bai

Mr. Maddela Ramanjanyya Vs State Bank of India

M/s Aravind Flexi Pack (India) Private Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner (St)

M/s Gun Affairs Vs State Bank of India and 2 others