The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging an assessment order and garnishee notice. The Court held that service via registered post was valid despite its return, alternative appeal remedies were available, and the order was within the time limit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3386 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OFAUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEP.SAM KOSHY AND
THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE LAXMINARAYANA ALISHETTY
WR]T PETITION No: 19310OF 2023
Betwee n:
M/s. Hame Trading Company,rep- by its Partner,Mr' RameshKumar Chaudhary, 1-37t2813Firsl'Flcrirr, Srinivas Reddy Colony, MedipallyKhaman, Hyderabad, Rangareddy,Telangana-500098.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Pelition under Article 226of the constilutionof lndia prayingthat in lhe circumstances stated inthe affidavit filedtherewith,the High court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamusor any olher appropriatewrit or orderor direction setting aside theassessment order of the 1st Respondent passedin AO No.37761, dated 3o.o3.2o21for the assessment year 2016-17under the central Sales Tax Act,1956as being iltegal and in violationof principles of naturaljustice and consequentlyset-aside the Garnishee notice issued by lhe 1st Respondent to the 2ndResPondent.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under section151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances staled in the affidavit filedin supportof the petition,the High court may be pleasedto
suspend the Garnishee notice issued by the 1stRespondent to the 2nd Respondent in pursuance of the impugned order dated 30.03.2021pending disposal of the Writ Petition, as otherwise the Petitionerwill be put lo severe loss and hardship.
lA NO: 2 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in thecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetilion, theHigh Court may be pleased to grant stay of recovery of the disputed tax of Rs.5,03,959/-pursuantto the impugned order of the 1sl Respondentdated 30.03.2021lor the assessmenl year 2O16'17 under the CST Act, 1956,pending disposalof the Writ Petition,as otherwise the Petitioner will beput to severeloss and hardship.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRIP.KARTHIK RAMANA, ADVOCATE Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 3: GPFOR COMMERCIALTAX
Counsel for the Respondent No.2:NONEAPPEARED
The Court made the following: ORDER
2
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITI ON NO.I93ro oF 2023
ORDER: @er ]loi,ble Si Justtce Loxmi Naragana AtisheuA)
Heard learned counsel Sri p.Karthik Ramaa Ior the petiticner and the learned standing counsel for Commercial lax.
2' The instant writ petition tras been fired b_v rhe petitioner to set aside the Assessment Order No.37761, dated 3O.O3.2O27 for the assessment year 2076_1T under Central Sales Act, l956 [Ior short, 'CST Act), and consequently, set aside the Garnishee Notice issued by ths 1", respondent to the 2,a respondent.
3 The briel facts as culled out from the writ petition are as under:
,)
Act forthe years 2015-16and 2016-17On enqr:irv' petitionercame to knowthat an assess ieni orcle r r|as pa s-strd 'rn 30 03 '202 1 raiSing a demandof Rs 5,O3,9597- ancl submittccl letter rlate13'O52O23 to the 1"trespondent bringing to their no,.ice r.hat no show-causenotice wasservedonthepetitionerpriortrlpassingtheorderand assessmentorder was not receivedbythe petitioner and that petitionerhas only a web copy o[ thc crder downloadedfrom the Departmentalwebsite'
(iii) The impugnedorder is beyond the time;
(iv) Serviceof notrce or order bv e n'rail is not recognizedas per Rule 64of the Telangana VAT Rules' 2OO5 (for short'VAT Rules').
.+
64 of the VAT Rules, as pcr which, noticc has to be issued through registered post, which IS not complied u,ith and as such. the assessment order, dated 3O.O3.2O21 is illegal and liable to be set aside.
7 Learned counsel for petrtioner has relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Hon,blc Court in W.p.No. 194g7 of 2O2O, wherein similar issue was considered. I n the said case, notice was not served either personally or by registered post and further, the assessment order was communicared to pctitioner through Whatsapp to the petitioner's represcntative after a deray ot six months after passing oI the assessment order. ln thosc circumstanccs, the Hon,ble Court held that there has been violation of principles of natural Justrce on account of non_sen,ice of show cause notice on the petltroner prior to passing oi the
assessmen t order by the l sr respondent in the manner indicated in Rule 64 of the VAT Rules.
the said shos'-citusenotice, final r']otice clatcd10 O3'2O2 I wasissued to the petitioner.'['herea[ter-finzrl asscssmentorder for the year 2016-17 waspassed on30 03 202 1demandingsumof Rs.5,O3,958.7Ops.
g. Lea.rnecl standingcounsel lurther submitsthat show-cause notice andfinalassessment order wercsent to the address,whichis provided by thepetitioner and in fact, the addressshown in the present vr.ri t Petition isalso s.rmc, to whichnotice wassent' Therefore,pctiticrtler ought to hav<:challengedthe assessment order by u,ay of filingan appeal under Scction31 of the VATAct' However' petitione i- failcd to availeffcctive a nd cfficaciousalternative remedy and, thereforc,cannot rnvokc jurisciiction of this Hon'bleCourtunder Articlecg6oltheConstitutionofindia.Her-ice,WritPetir.ion deservcs tcbc dismissed
1 O. In support ol hiscontentiotl, learncd standing counsel placed reiiance or-r ihedecisionofDivision Benchof thisCourt in W.P.No.34O19of2Ol2dated2O.ll2013,whereinsimilarissuer'''as considered,where notice sent throughregisteredpost was returned un-served and courthas came to conclusionthat noticesent by the registeredpostor place or business or dealeris suflicient service both under clause(a) and clause (b) of Rule6a( 1)'
6
i l. The material placed before this Court clearly indicates that show-cause notice and final assessment order were sent through registered post to the address provided by thc petitioner, which is the same as is mentioned in the cause titlc in this w-rit petition. Therefore, the conlention o[ the petitioner that Rule 64 of rhe Rules, 2005 is not complied wit h is nor correct.
12- However, in the instant case, show-cause notice was sent to the addressee by way o[ registcrcd post and thc same was returned as 'addressee left'. In consicierc d opinion of this Court, notice sent through registered post is a propcr scrvlcc. Hencc, there are clear latches, delay on the part of the petitioner in not challenging the fina.l assessment order by way of appeal, which is provided under Section 31 of the VAT Act and there is no plausible cxplanation for the delay in approaching this Hon'ble Court.
14- Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to invoke jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under ArLiclc 226 of the Constitution of India under
1
Rulc 14 (A) of the CS'l (Tclangana) Rules and, therefore, prese nr V/rir Petition fails on all grounds and is accordingly dismissed. 'l.here shall bc no order as to costs.
Pending rnisce llaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed,
SD/- P. PADMANABHAREDDY ASSISTANTREGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY// QE(-TIrl FF!CFR
To, 1 2. .i;; One CC to rc;SRI io CpP.KARTHIK RAMANA, rOn COMIMERCIAL Advocate TAX, High Court [OPUC]for the State of Telangana at HYderabad [OUT] 3. Two CD CoPies BSR GJP .V
HIGH COURT
DATED: 1010812023
ORDER
WP.No.19310 of 2023
e sI 4 I
6 '[ s
(o iL
2
Joo OE 5EP M C)
.L
i
t
DEit PlrT c
DISMISS!NG THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS
G; n )h
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the assessment order was legally passed despite the show-cause notice being returned 'addressee left',
Whether the petitioner could invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 failing the availability of alternative appeal remedy under Section 31 of the VAT Act
Whether the impugned assessment order was passed beyond the statutory time limit of four years
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
3 provisions across 3 enactments
M/s. Hame Trading Company
Commercial Tax Officer
The Manager, ICICI Bank
State of Telangana
P. SAM KOSHY
LAXMINARAYANA ALISHETTY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
