Allowed

M/S Bhongir Tyres (Mrf Exclusive Showroom) v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Jun 2023WP/15665/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a VAT revisional order denying Input Tax Credit due to alleged incomplete records. The High Court held that non-adherence to specific formats was a formal objection, not substantive, and set aside the order for a fresh hearing complying with natural justice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 26.04.2023 passed by the revisional authority was set aside and the matter was remanded for a fresh hearing within six weeks.

M/S Bhongir Tyres (Mrf Exclusive… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[33111

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 15665 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/S Bhongir lyres (MRF Exclusive Showroom), Represented by its proprietor Smt. Farha Sameen D/o Mohammad Jani,'Ageh iOori-ad y;5;r-,'b;. Working Woman, ouo. 11-T-21, behind eten tempie higt ii-hoof, 6;;;";;;: Kothapet, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 I!9 -Slg!9 of Tetangana, Rep. by its.principal Secretary, Commerciat Tax uepafl ment, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Joint Commissioner(ST), Nalgonda Division, Nalgonda.

¶14

The Dy. Commercial (CT), Nalgonda District, Nalgonda.

¶15

The Asst Commissioner (CT) LTU, Nalgonda Division, Nalgonda.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, thereby declaring the action of Respondent No.2, in passing the impugned order dated 2610412023 vide DC order No 192 (RR No.58/2022-2i), without considering the records and documents submitted by the petitioner, is unreasonable, illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the law, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice besides violation of the fundamental iights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of constitution of lndia, consequenfly set aside the impugned order dated. 26to4r2023 vide DC order No . ig2 (RR No.5812022-23)

¶18

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitron, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of impugned order passed by Respondent No.2, vide DC Order No. 192 (RR No.5812022-?-:l) dated. 2610412023.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHAMMAD IMTHIYAZ PASHA REPRESENTING FOR SRI MOHD SABER

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI L. VENKATESWAR RAO,

¶23

SPL. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHIIYAN

¶26

AI{D

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶28

WRIT PETITION No. 15665 of 2o23

¶29

ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice ujjal Bhugan)

¶30

Heard Moham mad lmlhiyaz Pasha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L.Venkateswar Rao, learned Special Standing Counsel, Commercial Tax Department representing the respondents

¶31

By filing this petition under Article 226 of th.e Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed legality and validity of revisional order dated 26.O4.2023 passed by the !"a respondent.

¶32

Be it stated that petitioner is a registered dealer under the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2OO5 (briefly referred to hereinafter as 'the VAT ActJ. Petitioner carries on the business of dealing with sale and purchase of MRF \rres & Tubes etc. For the period from 2016-17 to 2Ol7-18 (upto Juny/Jo L7l, petitioner was assessed by respondent No.4 uide

¶33

.qz

¶34

2 HC,I & N7'RJ W.P.No.156(t5 oJ' 2O23

¶35

order dated 1g.Og.2O 19. ()r_r scrutinv of the assessment record for the aforesaicl pt.riocl, it u,as found that assessing authority had allou,ed Input Tax Credit (lTC) of Rs.21,01,205.00 without pr.oper scrutiny of purchase details etc' In this connection, re'ision show cause notice dated 30.11.2022 u.as issued by the 2"a respondent to the petitioner whereafter the impugned order clated 26.O4.2023 was passed.

¶36

From a perusal ol the order dated, 26.O4.2023, it is seen that as per the 2"a respor-rdent, there was no response from the petitioner-. Ultimatel.v hnal hearing notice was issued whereafter petitioner had filed zr letter dated 13.02. 2023, but no purchase details were furnished. The accounts as certified by the chartered accountant u.cre also not furnished. In the crrcumstances, 2nd responden t acting as the revisional authority under Section 32 of the VAT Act passed the tmpugned order confirming the proposed lery of tax to the tune of Rs.21,01,205.00.

¶37

S. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the statements made in paragraph 7 of the writ affidavit and

¶38

HCJ & NTRJ W.P.No.15665 of 2023

¶39

¶40

submits that petitioner had submitted the entire record as sought for by respondent No.2, but the same was not looked into by respondent No.2 on the ground that the purchase record was not in format.

¶41

Adverting to the impugned order dated

¶42

26.O4.2023, we find that according to the 2.d respondent also, the dealer (petitioner) did not submit the purchase details in the required format; besides the accounts were not certified by the chartered accountant.

¶43

On due consideration, we are of the view that objection raised by the 2"d respondent is more of form tharr of substance. When the petitioner had submitted the record, the sarne ought to have been considered by the 2nd respondent before passing an order of revision revising the assessment order to the prejudice of the petitioner.

¶44

That being the position, we set aside the order d,ated 26.04.2023 and remand the matter back to the file of the 2na respondent for a fresh hearing and decision in

¶45

4 I]CJ & N'I'RJ W.P.No.15665 oJ' 2023

¶46

¶47

accordancc \vith lau.. It ri r>uld be open lo the petitioner to submit the record as soltght for inciuding the^accounts certifiecl bv the chartered .rccountant. Besides^{petitioner shali} also be pr-ovided a^personill opportunity^{of hearingbefore the} fresh order is passed

¶48

g. Let the entirc exercise on remand^{be completed} within six (06) weeks from^{lhe date of receipt of a copy of this} order.

¶49

1O. Writ Petition^{is arccordingly allowed.No costs'}

¶50

Misceilaneous applications^{pending, if any, in this}

¶51

writ petition shal1 stand^closed.

¶52

sD,-^{P PAoMANABRET,EFRRX}

¶53

//TRUE^COPY//

¶54

se?ror'r^oFFlcER

¶55

To, 1 . The Principal^{Secretary'.Commercial Tax Department' TheStateof}

¶56

;irr1"4mtl,1.3$ffiry"p5"t31.41,."J:,."",

¶57

i, fut::'{iffi 7. Two Two^C Copies

¶58

Two Two^C Copies BSK GJ

HIGH COURT

DATED:2210612023

ORDER

WP.No.15665^{of 2023}

¶63

e STATF
1
1s lut 2$8
'J
k
--
-:ta*+

¶64

ALLOWING^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶65

¶66

o^tp/aZ S^\

M/S Bhongir Tyres (Mrf Exclusive Showroom) v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Bhongir Tyres (Mrf Exclusive Showroom) 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

Smt.S.Swapna Vs Telangana State Pollution Control Board

Source Hub Vs The Assistant Unit

Polisetti Yuvabharathi Vs The State of Telangana

Amina Khatoon Vs The Union of India And 3 Others

Ncc Limited (formerly Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited), Vs The State of Telangana

Ncc Limited (formerly Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited) Vs The State of Telangana