Allowed

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private LtdPVT. Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner (St)

Telangana HC12 Jul 2022WP/8490/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A common order in three writ petitions challenging State Tax Orders and Act validity. The court observed that the issues were resolved in a prior decision, W.P. No. 7893 of 2020. Accordingly, the petitions were allowed without costs and rule nisi made absolute.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed under the prior judgment in W.P. No. 7893 of 2020; no separate order on costs; miscellaneous applications closed.

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private LtdPVT. Ltd. Vs The… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original J u risdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION Nos.8490, 28403 of 2019 & 15676 ot2022

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 8490 OF 2019

¶9

Between:

¶10

Reckitt Benckiser (lndia) Private Limitecl, Represented by its authorised signatory Mr. Tushar Jain Having it's office at Sy. No 695/696, H. No. 5-49/2 Behind Life Style Warehouse, Gundlapochampally, IVledchal -501014, Telangana.

¶11

...pETlTlONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner (ST), Begumpet Division, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 2. The Commercial Tax Officer, Bowenpally -l Circle, 6th Floor, RS Brothers Building, Pavani Prestige Complex, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

¶14

The State of Telangana, represented by its Secretary, Commercial Tax Department' Hyderabad

¶15

...RES'.NDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring (i) Section 5 of the Telangana Value Added Tax Amendment Acl, 2017 dated 2 December 2017 wilh retrospective effect from 17.06.2017 being ultra vires and as devoid of legislative competence (ii) Revision order dated 30.03.2019 bearing No. DC Order No. 168 in Rc.No. Revisions/ 7712018 passed by the 2nd Respondent, in purported exercise of his powers under Section 32 of the TVAT Act and (iii) effectual order dated 03.04.2019 bearing No. AAO No.26936 demanding a differential tax of Rs.17,04,19,878 for the period 01 .O4.2011 to 31.03.2014 as being illegal, arbitrary, without^{jurisdiction,} barred by limitation, violative of principles of natural justice for not having considered all the submissions of the Petitioner, and violative of Article 14 and Article I 9(1 )(g) of the Constitution of lndia.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶18

Petition under S rction 151 CPC praying that in the cir,)urrstances stated in the affidavit filed in rupport of the petition, the High Court rray br: pleased to stay the recovery of the tax demanded pursuant to th() said irnpugned⁽ⁱ⁾ Revision order datec 30.03.2019 bearing No. DC Orde No. 168 in Rc. No. Revisions/77l2O1 I passed by the 2nd Respondent, in prrportec exercise of his powers under Se.)tion 32 of the TVAT Act and (ii) eflectual order dated 03.04.2019 bearing No. AAO No.26936 demanding a clifferential tax of Rs.'17,04.19,878 for tl e period 01 .04.2011to31 .03.2014.

¶19

WRIT PETITION NO: 28403 OF 2019

¶20

Between:

¶21

Reckitl Benckiser (lnr ia) Private Ltd, Represented by its autiic,rised signatory Ms. Kanika Bansal Having it's office at Sy. No 695/696, H. No 5-4'1,2. Berind Life Style Warehouse, Gundlapr^,:hampally, lt/edchal - 501014, Telangan r.

¶22

. .PETITIONER

¶23

AND

¶24

'1 . The Commerci rl Tax Officer, Bowenpally Circle, 6th Flo,)r, [:'avirni Prestige, Ameerpet, Hyc ,:rabad

¶25

The Deputy C< rnmissioner (ST), Begumpet Division, Anre,erpet Hyderabad. 3. The State of T :langana, represented by its Secretary, Commer:ial Tax Department, S,:cretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶26

...R:SPONDENTS

¶27

Petition unde Article 226 of the Constitution of lrd a praying that in the circumstances stat€ I in the affidavit filed therewith, the^-ligh Court may be pleased to issue a V /nt, Order or direction particularly one ir^':he n: ture of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS dr claring (i) the vires of Rule 25(8)(b) o' '.he Tr:langana Value Added Tax Rules 2( 05 defining tax under declared in resped of output tax as ultra vires/beyond Sectic r 78 of the Telangana Value Added Ta>: r\ct 2C05 (ii) the order bearing A.O.48238 dated 27 .12.2019 issued by the 1st flespondent imposing penalty of Rs.4,2€,04,9701- for the Period April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2014, pursuant to d No rce of Penalty dated 9.12.2019 and llevision order dated 30.03.2019 bearinJ No.DC Order No. 168 in Rc. No. Revir.ir:ns/7-'12018 (Revision Order) passed by ne 2nd Respondent, in purported exe.c se of iris powers under Section 32 of the Telangana Value Added Tax Act (T',/AT), 'or being illegal, without^jurisdictior and violative of Article 14 and Article 1311)(g) of d Constitution of lndia

¶28

(Prayer is a nended by the counsel as per Court Onir:r, dated 05.02.2020 in l.A No.2 of i020.)

¶29

lA NO: 1 OF 20'19

¶30

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 all further proceedings pursuant to the notice of penalty dated 09.12.20'19 issued by the 1st Respondent proposing to impose penalty of Rs.4,26,04,970/- for the Period Aprrl 1,2O11 lo March 31, 2014.

¶31

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶32

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 all further proceedings pursuant to order bearing A.O.48238 dated 27.12.2019 passed by the 1st Respondent imposing penalty of Rs.4,26,04,970/- for the Period April 1, 2011 to March 31 ,2014.

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO:^'t5676 OF 2022

¶34

Betlveen:

¶35

M/s. Ratnadeep Retail Private Limited, (Formerly known as Ratnadeep Supermarket Private Limited) Represented by its authorized signatory, Mr.Sandeep Agarwal Having its office at D/18, Near Secunderabad Club, Vikrampuri, Secunderabad, Hyderabad - 500009.

¶36

...PETITIONER

¶37

AND

¶38

The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Maredpally Circle, Begumpet Division, 6th Floor, Pavani Prestige, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500016.

¶39

2 The Commissioner of State Tax, C.T Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500016

¶40

State of Telangana, Through Principal Secretary to Government Revenue Department(CommercialTax), Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶41

...RESpONDENTS

¶42

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 issue a Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS (i) declaring that the Telangana Value Added Tax (Second Amendment) AcL,2017 (Act No. 26 of 2017) is passed in violation of Articles 246, 2464, Entry 54 of List ll of Constitution of lndia, Section 19 of the Constitution 101st Amendment Act 2016 and ultra vires the Constitution of lndia and void ab

¶43

¶44

initio and (ii) declaring .hat the order passed by Respondent ",1r.1 levying tax of INR 19,39,49,109/- rn r .O No 1716 dated 15 02.2022 lor lhe p:eriod /rugust 2015 to fMarch 2016 propo: ng to disallow the input tax credit end dernanding tax against the exempted s ,rles as berng barred by limitation, violal c n of t re principles of natural^justice, illegi , arbitrary, without authority of law, anl violatLve of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

¶45

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶46

Petition under S r:ction 1 51 CPC praying that in the circ rrnstances stated in the affidavit filed in su.rport of the petition, the High Court may be plr;ased to stay all further proceedin -1s including stay of collection of tlrr: disputed tax of Rs.19.39,49,109/- rn 5 ursuance of the impugned order bear n3 Assessment Order No. 1716 dated 15 02 i022 passed by Respondent 1.

¶47

Counsel for the Petil oners in all W.Ps.: SRl. KARAN TAL\ruAR

¶48

Counsel for the Res ,ondents in all W.Ps.: SRI K. RAJI Rl:I.)l)Y',

¶49

SENIOR S.C, FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶50

The Court made the lbllowing: COMMON ORDER

¶51

NND

¶52

¶53

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶54

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶55

WRIT PETITION Nos.849O of 2O19 284O3 of 2019 & L567ro of 2022

¶56

COMM ON ORDER: 1l'r tlr: !lort l crttL.',htt'[.]rtsticetI11ol lllutllarL)

¶57

i{c;rrd Mr. Karirr^{'fi,ll\r'.rr,} lcarlrcd counsel lor thc pctil.ioncrs and Mr. Ii.Rqi Redd-t', learncd Senior Standing Counsel, Commcrcial^'l':x f <.rr r;rc rr:spondcnts.

¶58

..) It is surbmitrc,:l ihat issue reiised in these^q'rit petittons llas becrr ansu'ered b-r' this Court in W.P.No.7893 of 202a and batch (M/s. Sri Sri Engineering Works v. Deputy Commissioner (CT)) dt'r:rclc'cl r;rr^()lr.i.) i )(.')'.t-

¶59

l. Accordingl, tlre Writ, Petitions are allowed in terms of tlrc irfi.rrcsrri,i.]udgrncnt. I'loivcr,'cr. tl-rcrc shilll bu no orclci as [o c()sLs

¶60

,+. M iscellarreor-rs applications pending, il any, shall stand closed

¶61

That^{Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above'} on^{this Tuesday'} Witness^{the Hon'bte the Chief Justice UJJAL BHUYAN'} theTwetfthdayofJuty,TwoThousandandTwentyTwo.

¶62

"rrr??![i'?],-'iH ,lTRUE^COPYII secrbtorrtcen

'i*;*$tvu:ff1ffim

cHR Y,--

HIGH COURT

DATED: 121071 ,1.022

COMMON OT IDER

W.P.Nos.849.1,28403 of 2019 & 15676 of 202it

¶69

:l tAt-E
1E ii'i'r ?$U2
I

¶70

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT C^ICSTS

¶71

(io/
m
l( >at

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private LtdPVT. Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner (St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private LtdPVT. Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner (St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vallurupalli Tarakeswar and another Vs Canara Bank and 3 others

M/s.Polepally Solar Parks Private Limited Vs The National Faceless Assessment Centre

Prl Commr of Income TAX-2, Hyderabad Vs M/S Hyd Menzies Air Cargo [P] Ltd., Ranga Reddy Dist

Sri M. Venkat Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 6 Others

M/s. Viswakirthi Conveyors Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

State President, Ts Vidhyavanthula Vedika (Tvv), Adilabad Vs Prl. Secretary, Revenue Dept., Hyd and 4 Others