Dismissed

M/ s. Sandor Tescon Aqua Private Ltd., v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Jun 2023WP/13194/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging additional tax levied under the Telangana VAT Act. The Court held that the petitioner had a fair opportunity of hearing and directed them to file a preferential appeal under Section 33.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with a direction to the petitioner to file an appeal within 30 days.

M/ s. Sandor Tescon Aqua Private… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

{

[³³¹¹ I

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

¶6

IVONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE

¶7

¶8

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶9

PRESENT

¶10

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶11

AND

¶12

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶13

WRIT PETITION NO: 13194 OF 2023

¶14

Between

¶15

Ivl/s. Sandor Tescon Aqua Private Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director Sri Gillela Lakshmikanth -Reddy lin.364647 47234, Office at.8 -2 -32615, Road No 3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500034

{

...PETITIONER

AND

1 The State of Telangana, Rep by its special Chief Secretary Revenue (CTand Excise) Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶20

2 The Commissi<iner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Telangana C.T Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad-500001

¶21

3 Joint Commissioner/ Additional commissioner of State Tax, Punj agutta Circle, D.No. 5-9-279, 6th Floor, Mayur Kushal Complex, B-Blocks, Beside. Chermas, Abids, Hyderabad-500001

¶22

State Tax Officer-|, Jubilee Hillsl circle, Punjagutta Divrsion, D. No. 5-9-279, 6th Floor. Mayur Kushal Complex, B-Blocks, Beside. Chermas, Abids, Hyderabad-500001

¶23

...RESPONDENTS

¶24

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stat3d in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to assue a writ or order or direction more particularly one rn the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.3 in issuing the impugned Revision order in Proc. RR No.211202O-21 dated. 06/03/2023 in levying additional tax @9.5 Percent a sum of Rs. 30,97,265 without considering my written objections and submissions made during personal hearing as bad, arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of Natural Justice.

.J I

{

{

{

lA NO:'l oF 2023

Petition unde. Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned Revision order in Proc. RR No.2112020-21 dated. 0610312023 in levying additional lax @9.5o/o a sum of Rs. 30,97,265

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. C RUTHWIK REDDY

¶36

Counsel for the Respondents: MS. C. ROHINI SMITHA, GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES

¶37

The Court made the following: OROER

¶38

I .A

¶39

¶40

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHTIYAN AND

¶41

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶42

Writ Petition No.13194 of 2023

¶43

ORDER: lrer ltte Itoi'ble tte ChteJ Justice Uial BhuAan)

¶44

Heard Mr.C.Ruthwik Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.C.Rohini Smitha, learned Government Pleader for Commercia,l Taxes appearing on behalf of respondents.

¶45

By filing this petition under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed order of revision dated 06.O3.2O23 passed by the third respondent under Section 32(21 of the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short "IVAT Act'hereinafter).

¶46

Petitioner is a dealer under the TVAT Act and is engaged in the business of water treatment plants, equipment sp€rres etc. A pre-revision notice under Section 32(21 dated 27.O7.2O2O was issued by the third respondent to the petitioner stating that on verification of the audit Iile of the petitioner, it was found that the dealer i.e., the petitioner had computed and paid tax @ 5o/o on sale of

)

water treatment units / purifiers instead of l'l.Sok as^per schedule V. This act resulted in short levy ol tax to^the tune of Rs.30,97,265.0O due to incorrect adoption of rate of tax in the order of assessment. Since the assessment order was found to be prejudicial to the interest ol' revenue, it was proposed to revise the assessment order ulrder Section 32(21 by lerying the differential tax of Rs.30,9'7,265.OO for the aforesaid period. Thereafter the revisional order came to be passe,1.

¶53

/ I

¶54

A perusal of the revisional order woukl go to show that petitioner did not submit reply. Ho'a'ever, when personal h earing notice was issued to thr: petitioner, petitioner submitted reply and thereafter it's Managing Director Mr.G.Lakshmikanth Reddy appearecl before the third respondent. Objection was raised by the petitioner to the higher rate of tax. However, for the reasons given in the order of revision, the objection was not accepted and the additional tax proposed in the pre-revision notice was confirmed.

-l

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that fair opportunity of hearing was not granted to the petitioner and therefore, the revisional order is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶60

¶61

We are unable to accept such contention of the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order dated 06.03.2023 would go to show that pre-revision notice was issued to the petitioner but there was no response. When notice of personal hearing was issued, petitioner submitted reply whereafter its Managing Director attended the hearing.

¶62

Without entering into the merit of the impugned order, we feel that since the same is an appealable order under Section 33 of the TVAT Act, petitioner may file appeal before the appellate authority. If the petitioner Iiles the appeal within a period of 3O days from today, the appellate authority shall take on board the said appeal and decide the same on merit after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

1 I

We make it clear that u,e have not expressed any

¶68

opinion on merit and all the contentions are kept open.

¶69

Sttbject to the above, writ petition is dismissed.

¶70

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶71

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶72

¶73

SD/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGIS

//TRUE COPY//

S OFFICER

I j

To, '1. One CC to SRl. C RUTHWIK REDDY Advocate IOPUCI 2. TWO CCS tO MS. C. ROHINI SMI.T+IA,-GP FOR bOIVIT,It..RCIAI TAXES, High

¶78

Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 3. Two CD Copies

KKS GJP,," J

{

q* ij

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210612023

ORDER

WP.No.13194^{ot 2023}

¶87

DISMISSlNG^{THE WP} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶88

6
ar[el 2-S
Su)

¶89

ft\ E STATF o
'v
i1
c(,\ 2 B luN ?0zl
I
'i
.i-.'-'"'r
-.-r:.::,;:*r'
I
I

¶90

¶91

T {

M/ s. Sandor Tescon Aqua Private Ltd., v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/ s. Sandor Tescon Aqua Private Ltd., 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

Virtusa Consulting Services Private Limited. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

R. Lakshmi Devi Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. R.Karunakar Reddy Vs The Commissioner of Central Tax

T. Ramesh Son of Venkata Reddy Vs Sri. N. Sreedhar

M/s. Tata-Aldesa(Jv) Vs Union of India

Sri. Janga Muralidhar Reddy Vs The Union of India