Disposed

M/s. Ph Jewels v. State. of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Aug 2023WP/22822/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition arising from a section 151 CPC petition seeking refund of admissions of trade tax under TSVAT Act, 2005. Due to subsequent developments and disposal of a related case, the court permitted the petitioner to approach the competent authority for refund instead, declining to pass specific direct orders in the writ proceeding.

What did the court decide?

Permitted the petitioner to approach the competent authority to move an appropriate application for refund of ITC. No order as to costs.

M/s. Ph Jewels Vs State. of Telangana — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸⁶¹

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHY AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 22822 OF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s.PH Jewels, 1st Floor, Regus Brlsiness Centre, Mid Town plaza, Road No.1, panjqla Hills, Hydsrabad - 500033. Sote^proprietary Firm, Rep. by iis propdetrix, Radhika Aganval, D/o. Ashok Agarwal, Aged about 42 years,

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

'1 . State of Telangana,. Commercial Taxes Department, Rep_ by principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (ST), Commercial Taxes Department, Nampally Station Road, Hydera6ad.

¶14

The Joint Commissioner (ST), Abids Drvision, (previously Secunderabad Division), 1st Floor, Old Kakatiya Hotel, Nampally, Hydeiabad.500 001.

¶15

The Asst. Commissioner (ST), Hyderguda -Ashok Naqar Circle, (previouslv QfQ,^{nsng[!_agar Circle), 2nd Ftoor, OtdKakariya Hotet,Nampbily,} Hyderabad.500 001.

¶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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Orders, Direction or Directions to declare the action of the respondents in not refunding the amount of Rs.1 ,53,73,3371- due under the Assessment Order No. 82103 dated 29.12.2020 passed by the 4th respondent for the period from

¶18

March, 2016 to June, 2017 in accordance with the provisions of Section 38 of the TSVAT Act, 2005 as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and to issue a consequential direction to the respondenls to refund the amount as per the Assessment Order dated 29.12.2020 along with interest or 12 percenl pA from 06.12.2017 on date which the petitioner submitted its claim and documents as per Section 38 of the TSVAT Act.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶20

Petition under section i 5i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents.to refund the lrc amount of Rs.1 ,53,73,3371 as per the Assessment order No. 82103 dated 29.12.2020 along with interest @ 12% per Annum trom 0611212o17 till the date of actual payment, which is mandatory U/s.38 of the VAT Act.

¶21

Counsel for Petitioner : SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS for MTs.VEDULA CHITRALEKHA

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSIIY

¶25

AND

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE A. LIIXMI NARAYANA

¶27

W.P. o. 22822 of2O2t

¶28

JUDGMEI{T:6; er ttotl'ble Si Justtce P.SA.M rrOSHfl)

¶29

Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mrs. vedula chitralekha, learned counsel for the appe ant and learned Govemment Pleader for Commercial Tax Department.

¶30

Taking into consideration the subsequent developments that have been transpired, particularly the order, d,ated 27.O7.2023, and also in the light of the disposal of W.p.No.26lg4 of 2021, the present writ petition, at this juncture, stands disposed of, permitting the petitioner to approach the competent authority to move an appropriate application for refund of the I.T.C., in terms of the order passed by the Assessing oflicer.

¶31

Accordingly, the Writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs

¶32

4 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶33

closed

¶34

SD/. K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGIS R

//TRUE COPYII

SECTIO FFICER

To,

1 The Principal Secretary, State of Telangana, Commercial Taxes Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶39

2 The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (ST), Commercial Taxes Department, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad.

¶40

3 The Joint Commissioner (ST), Abids Division, (Previously Secunderabad Division), 1st Floor, Old Kakatiya Hotel, Nampally, Hyderabad.500 00'1^.

¶41

4 The Asst. Commissioner (ST), Hyderguda^-Ashok Nagar Circle,^(Previously CTO, Ashok Nagar Circle), 2nd Floor, Old Kakatiya Hotel, Nampally, Hyderabad.500 001 .

¶42

5 One CC to MTs.VEDULA CHITRALEKHA, Advocate. [OPUC] 6 Two CCs to GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶43

7 Two CD Copies.

¶44

BSK SB^{/^} :D

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710812023

ORDER

WP.No.22822 af 2021

. --a- i:: -
/i.,,:'
,'<br>-,. ,1
// ',' ,'s
!, ;,
Ct ril
1'1 '.
C. it
c
\ ,,u', , - I ...\ ./

¶50

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT^PET|T|ON WITHOUT COSTS

¶51

t7'^scd'd
a9

M/s. Ph Jewels v. State. of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Ph Jewels v. 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 Archana Travels, Vs T. Sreenath

M/s Archana Travels Vs L. Narotham Reddy

M/S. Hyderabad Race Club Vs the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Asst.)

M/s Hilton Constructions Builders and Developers Vs The Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and 2 Others

K.Mohammed Akber Vs the Union of India

Syed Manzoor Hussain Vs The Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission