Dismissed

Backbone Projects Limited v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Aug 2023TREVC/3/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a Tax Revision Case filed by Backbone Projects Limited assailing an order of the Telangana VAT Appellate Tribunal refusing to admit an appeal due to limitation. The Court found the appeal was not barred as notice was served within the permissible time frame.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Backbone Projects Limited Vs The State of Telangana — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸⁶ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH^{DAYOF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^P.SAMKOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI^{NARAYANA ALISHETTY}

¶6

TAX REVISIO N CASE No: 3 of2 o20

¶7

Tax revision under Section 22^{(1) (See Rule 40) of the AndhraPradesh General} Sales Tax Act, 1957 aggrieved^{by order daled15-02-2019 in T.A.No-549of 2009 on} the file of the Telangana^{Value AddedTax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad against} the order dated 11-07-2006^{made in A.R.S.L.No-B/12512005 on the file of the Deputy} Commissioner, Punjagutta^{Division, Hyderabad.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Backbone Projects Limited,^ReP by its Managing Director^Jayanthibhai Jakasania, lndian Air Lines^Cargo Compound Beside Cold Storage^Plant, Begumpet Hyderabad.

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep.by^{its State Representative,Telangana VAT} Appellate Tribunal,2nd Flodr, Commissioner^{of CommercialTaxes Complex, 5-4-} 400 to 404, Nampally,^{Hyderabad-500001.}

¶13

...Respondent

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI T.S. MURTHY}

¶15

Counsel forthe Respondent:^{SRIK. RAJIREDDY, SC FOR CT}

¶16

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶17

¶18

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSIIY AND

¶19

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARA,YANA ALISHETTY

¶20

TAX RE\IISION CASE NO.3 OF 2O2O

¶21

ORDER: @er Hon'bte S.i Ju.;tice Loxn NaraAatw AlbhetL,)

¶22

The instant^'I'ax Revision Case has been filed assailing the order dated 15.02.2019 passed by the Telangana Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, I{yderabad, in T.A.No.549 of 2009 and to admit the appeal based on the limitation from the date of certified copy oi t he penalfy- order.

¶23

2- We have he;rrd rhe learned counsel Sri T.Srinivasa Murthy lbf Lnc peritioncr And the leartred senior standing courrsel for the respondent.

¶24

The brief facts leading t-o filins of presen[ Revision Case are as under:

¶25

Petitioner is an assessee on the Rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Begumpet Cir-cle, Hyderabad (for short,^,CAT) with its Registcred Ofhce in.,r shed at Begumpet Airport Runway, having undcrlerkcr-r tttc works contract tiom Airports Authority of India Limited ([or shorr, 'AAIL') lor extension of Runway, Apron, Tax 'l'rack ;tnd constrr-lction of parallel taxi track at Begulnpet, Hyderabad.

¶26

-r

¶27

l\A../^{d /-\ lJ} t t?l.t C^{\o 3oJ )Dt)}

¶28

¶29

The said^{contract was cancelledby AAIL on O4 09 2004'} Petitioner^{has submittedletrer dated'02 l2'2O04 to theCTO} work order by AAIL^and informing^{about the cancellationof} direct future vacating the^{business premisesand} requested^to correspondence^{ornotices'etc''to} Sri Rajesh K.Jakasania, Executive^{Director, A9, Kumud Apartments'CG Road' Stadium'5s} road, Navarangpura,^{Ahmedabad-38ooo9'who was appointedas} In-charge^{for Hyderabadproject incompliance of the Rule} 54(1)(2X3)^{read with expressionoccurringin Rule54 (1) & (3) and} theSamewasacknowledgedbytheCTo,Begumpetorlo2.|2.2oo4.

¶30

dated^{O3.05.2005 under} 6. The CTO Passed penaltY order on purchase^{of Cement} Rs.39,54,9^10/- Section^{5B(3)(b)(ii) for} against^{Form-Gfor use rn workscontractHowever' the authorized} person has^{neitherreceived the show-cause notic€ nor the penalty} order.^{The CTO despite aware of closure of business' had posted} theshow-causenoticeandpenaltyordertovariousaddressesof t]le^{petitioner-company'except theauthorized personas} mentioned^{in letter datedO2 12 '2OO4Petitioner contended that} said action^{of CTO is in violationof principles of natural justice} and violation^{of Rule 54 read with Rule 58 of APGSTRules(for} short, 'RulesJ.

¶31

PSK.J & LXA,J TIIEIC\o)of2020

¶32

¶33

The petitioner having come to know about the penalty order, obtained certified copy of penalty order on 11.11.2OO5 and filed thc statutory Appeal under Section l9 before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Punjagutta Division (for short, ADC) within the limitation period of 3O days from the date of receipt of certihed copy. However, the ADC rejected the appeal No.ARSL No.B/t2S/ 2OO5, dated I I .O7 .2006 on the ground of limitation.

¶34

Aggrieved by the rejection order dated 1 1.O7.2006, petitioner preferrcd appeal before the Telangana VAT Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad vide T.A.No.S49 of 2OO9 and the same was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal vide order, dated t5.O2.2O19.

¶35

Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that there is clcar violation of Rule 54(3), since the respondent did not send thc noticc and order to the address mentioned in the letter dated O2.12.2OO4 and further submitted that both the ADC as well as the Appellatc Tribunal erred in rejecting the appeal. He further submitted that the Appellate Authority did not take into consideration the judgments relied upon by the petitioner in support of his claim.

¶36

On the other hand, the learned senior standing counsei for respondent would submit that the decision of ADC as well as the Appellate Tribunal were correct in rejecting the appeal and have

¶37

P5(../ & a.,1.J T REt C .\o ) ol²⁰²⁰

¶38

¶39

recorded proper reasons for such^{rejection and there are no merits,} grounds for interference with the impugned^order.

¶40

Consideration:

¶41

A perusal of the order^{of ADC dated I I 07.2006showsthat} the Assessing Authority^{had sent the impugnedorder to the}

¶42

following addresses:

¶43

1 M/ s.Back Bone^{ProjectsLtd',} 2O4,2O5, Gateway^{Plaza, HiramberGarden,} Powai, Mumbai.

¶44

2 M/ s Backbone^{ProjectsLtd.,} A/9, Kumed Apartments,^{CG Roads,} Stadium 5 Rasta^{Navrangapura, Ahmedabad}

¶45

Sri Dhirajilal, s/o.^{Ambamani,ManagingDirector,} M/ s.Backbone^{ProjectsLimited,} Raghavendra Nagar^ColonY, Shivarampally^{village, Hyderabad-}

¶46

4 M/ s Backbone^{ProjectsLimited,} Inside Hyderabad^AirPort, Backside of IBP^{PetroleumPumP,} Begumpet, Hyderabad

¶47

It is clear from^{the above that the order was also sent to the} address mentioned^{by the petitioner in its letter daled 02 l2'2OO4'} The ADC had also^{observed that there was delay of six months in} hling Appeal,^{which is beyondfurther period ol 30 days' that can} be condoned by^{the Appellate Authoriry' The ADC also observed} that orders sent to^{the Managing Director at Hyderabad address} and to the appellant's^{company at Hyderabad were returnedby the} Postal Authorities with^{the endorsement'nol claimed and without}

¶48

PSK,J & L,\iA.J TREL'C !'o.3 o12020

I \

I t

intimation [elt', respectively. However, the orders sent to the appellant's offices at Mumbai and Ahmedabad address were received by the appellant on 13.05.2005, which is evident from the acknowledgment cards returned back by the postal Authorities.

¶54

The ADC also observed that as per Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the APGST Act, any deaier objecting to any order passed by the authorities has to hle an Appeal within 30 days from the date on which the order was served on it. Further, as per flrst proviso to Section i9, rhe Appellate Authority has power to condone further period of 3O da5,s, if the dealer shows sufhcient cause for not preferring the Appeal within that period. It is evident from the record that the Appeal to ADC was hled on O9.12.2OO5, whereas, order was served on appellant on 13.O5.2005, which is after a period of six months, which is admittedly beyond the condonable delav of 3O days by the Appellate Authority.

¶55

As per the observation of the order dated ll.07.2006, it shows that the orders sent to the appellant,s office at Bombay and Ahmedabad address (which is the same address as mentioned in letter dated 02. l2.2OO4l were received by the petitioner on 13.05.20OS and, thcrefore, the contention of the petitioner that the order was not sent to [he address mentioned in the letter dated O2.12.2OO4 and there is non-compliance of statutory provision of

¶56

,f,\A../ d /_\ 1../ tRI:.t( \o Ioflto

¶57

¶58

Rule 54 (3) is contrary to the record and thus, factually ittcorrecL and there are clear latches/default on the part of the^{pelition€r.}

¶59

Conclusion:

¶60

In the above facts and circumstances, the Revision^{Case is} devoid of merits and does not warrant interference of^{this Court} with the impugned order and accordingly, the^{Revision Caseis}

¶61

dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶62

Pending miscellaneous applications^{if any shall standclosec{.}

¶63

//TRUE^COPY//

¶64

Sd/. K. SRINIVASA^RAO JOINT REGISTRAR .,, 4/

¶65

SECTION^OFFICER

¶66

To,

¶67

The Telangana^{Value Added Tax AppellateTribunal'Hyderabad}

¶68

The Deputy^{Commissioner,Punjagutta Division' Hyderabad'}

¶69

One^{CC to SRI T.S. MURTHY, Advocate{OPUGI}

¶70

One^{CCto SRI K. RAJI REDDY, SC FOR CT [OPUC]}

¶71

Two^{CD Copies}

kam

x's'

----:

HIGH COURT DATED:14l0 B1ZOZ3

¶76

ORDER

¶77

TREVC.No.3 of 2020

¶78

5TAT E o.c
o
lu jl,N 1t1<br>s\ 3
o
Di
D E

¶79

THE TAX REVISION CASE IS DISMISSED

¶80

,r\ u>3
1il{'

Backbone Projects Limited v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Backbone Projects Limited v. The State of Telangana

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 Vishupriya Constructions Vs The Union of India

A.P.Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd, Hyderabad. Vs Union of India, Rep by Its Sec, Min of Fin,New Delhi and 2 Oth

M/s. Lakshmi Finance and Industrial Corporation Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs M/S. Kamalaja Industries

M/s. Mr Constructions Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

- Vs -