Disposed

Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Telangana HC11 Sept 2023WP/26980/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the State of Telangana's inaction in refunding VAT dues due to a deficiency in service notice date. The respondent conceded the notice was issued but not yet served. The court directed the respondent authority to dispose of the matter and deemed the writ petition defined as not needing further action.

What did the court decide?

Rights granted regarding disposal of the writ petition without costs and closure of miscellaneous applications.

Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited Vs The State of… — GST and Indirect Tax | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH^{DAYOF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY} AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{LAXMINARAYANA AL]SHETTY}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 26980^{OF 2022}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Kanwar Enterprises Private^{Limited, Rep. by its Manager Mr. Ajit Kumar lvlohapatra,} giiltiite, Sundaraiah Nagar, Banddrugirdem, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam, Telangana.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana and^{3 others, Representedby its Principal Secretary,} (Revenue), Secretarial, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Assistant Commissioner-State^{Tax, Khammam -ll Circle,Warangal} Division, Khammam.

¶14

3 Joint Commissioner - State^{Tax,WarangalDivision,Warangal - PIN 506 001}

¶15

4 Commissioner of State^{Tax,Telangana State, Hyderabad.}

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 ot^{lhe Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filed therewith' the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate^{writ or Order or} Direction declaring inaction of the^{Respondentor Respondentsin not refunding} the amount due to the Petitioner to a^{tune of Rs 33,67,347.00underThe} Telangana Value Added Tax Act 2005^{in-spite of Respondentor Respondents} agreements with their DCB^{Reportsread with AssessmentOrders/Re-} Assessment orders and finality of^{their further confirmationof Refund claim with} its Form VAT 351 dated^{1610712021as arbilrary, contraryto law, in violation of} principles of natural^justice and consequently direct^{the Respondentsto refund}

¶18

the amounts due to the Petitioner along^{with interest alias1 .25 oercent Per Month} forthwith.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the HighCourt may be pleased to} direct the Respondents to refund the amounts^{due to the Petitroner,withinterest} alias 1.25percent Per Month forthwith, as^{per the AssessmentOrder or Re-} Assessment Orders and Notifications of confirmation of^{Refund Claimwithits} Form VAT 351 dated 16.07.2021^read with^{Petitioner representationsdated} 271O712021 , 23logl2o21 and 26lO7l2O2'1^{pending disposalof the above,as} otherwise, the Petitioner would be^{put to severeloss and hardship.}

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI NARENDRA^{KUMAR T}

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL^TAX

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

¶25

.THtr IION'BLE SIU.IUSI'ICE P.SAM KOSIIY

¶26

AND

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALTSIIETTY WRI'I'PETITI ON No.26980 of2022

¶28

O trl D E R:r;','r I!on hle Sri.tutriLc t..lXltfl N4R_Ar,..1.,1 . L6HE:TTI,)

¶29

Heard Mr.Narendra Kumar l, learncd counscl lbr. the petitioner and learned Govetnment pleader lbr Commercial lax. perused the matcrial on record

¶30

) Today. "vhen lhc rratter is taken up 1or hearing. the learned counscl firl thc rcspondcnt submirted that thc pr.c_rc,, ision notice dated 28.08.20:j has b,een issucd to thc petitioner: therefore. the notice against which the prcscnt rvrrt p..ritiori hrrs hcc-rr llled does not survi,o,

¶31

3' Lcarned cou.scl tbr thc pctitioncr s.rburirted that the said notice has ,ot bccn ser,,.ecl t. thr: l_.ctrti..cr. h,wcrcr, nurv lre accepts tltc. same i.e.. noticc dated 28.08.202i.

¶32

4' tn the light or- tire subseqirL'rir crc'eroprnenrs. the petitioner is at liberty to appear befbre thc autho'ity a,d nrake sub,issions and respond to the prc:-rer.ision notrcc a'd tul.,-.all ther relbrences available including thc aspcct oi lirnitati,.rrr arrcl .juristlie tron. l-he pctitioner shall appi:ar belbrc rhe authority o, or hc iirrc i 0 r 0.102i and no ltesh notice nceds io [:rc il;s:ui:ci to rhc pct,lio,c. i:r1 thc t.cspol.,clc,l. Iiurther.

¶33

¶34

the respondent authority^{shall take into considerationall the}

¶35

submissions that^{may be submittedby the petitionerand decide the} same in accordance^{with law.}

¶36

Accordingly,^{the Writ Petitionstandsdisposed of' No order as to} costs.

¶37

6 As a sequel, miscellaneous^{applications pending if any in this writ}

¶38

petition. shall stand closed

¶39

SD/. T. JAYASREE ASSISTAULREGISTRAR ,-f,B SECTION OFFICER

¶40

//TRUE COPY//

¶41

To, 1. The Principal Secretary,^{(Revenue), Telangana, Secretarial,} lVdgraqg! 2. The Assiatant Comniissioner-State^{Tax, Khammam -ll Circle, Warangal} Division, Khammam.

¶42

The Joint Commissioner^{- State Tax, Warangal Division, Warangal- PIN 506} 001 .

¶43

The Commissioner of State Tax,^{Telangana State,Hyderabad.}

¶44

One CC to SRI NARENDRA KUMAR.T,^Advocate. [OPUC]

¶45

Two CCs to GP FOR COMIMERCIAL^{TAX, High Court for the State of} Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶46

Two CD Copies. BSK GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 110912023

ORDER

WP.No.26980^{of 2022}

¶51

{. ;;TA i /--
C)
.tl. ,
11 otl 2sa
,
?
'i$

¶52

DISPOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶53

.0
Q>
4\o''

Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yada Lingamma Vs Yada Shilpa and 4 others

Yada Lingamma Vs G. Bhramaiah, And 4 Others

Yada Shilpa Vs Yada Lingamma and 4 Others

M/s. Cement Corporation of India Ltd, Vs State Representative

The Prl. Commissioner of income Tax - 2, Vs M/s. Hyundai Motor India Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Lohiya Industries Vs the State of A.P.