Allowed

M/s. a. Narotham Reddy v. Joint Commissioner (St)

Telangana HC11 Oct 2023WP/27290/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a revisional tax order under the Telangana VAT Act, 2005, holding that it violated principles of natural justice because the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to reply to show-cause notices served less than 24 hours before the order was passed. The writ petition was allowed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari issued to set aside the impugned D.C. Order No.307, dated 16.06.2023. Petitioner directed to reply show-cause notice by 31.10.2023.

M/s. a. Narotham Reddy Vs Joint… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸⁶ ]

¶2

i I i

¶3

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

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA^ALISHETTY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 27290 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s. A. Narotham Reddy, Contraclo(,^{#2-4-120411718,} KUDA Colony, Vidyaranyapuri, Hanamkonda, Warangal-506^001.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Joint Commissioner (ST), Warangal Division,^Warangal.

¶13

Deputy Commercial Tax Officer/ State^{Tax Officer(l/C),Office of Joint} Commissioner (ST), Warangal Division,^Warangal.

¶14

Commercial Tax Officer, Ramannapet^{Circle, Warangal-}

¶15

Assistant Commissioner^(ST), Warangal^{Urban-lll Circle, Warangal.}

¶16

State of Telangana, rep. by^{its Principal Secretaryto Government,Revenue} (CT-ll) Department, Secretanat, Hyderabad.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 o{ lhe Constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith, the High Court maybe} pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, quashing the order of the^{1St Respondent in} DC Order No.3O7, dated 16.6.2023 for the^{tax period2O14-15to 2017-18,under} the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005, as^{illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction} and in violation of^principles of natural .lustice^{and contraryto lawand} consequently direct the 1sl Respondent^{to ad.iudicatethe proceedings afresh after} giving fair opportunity to the Petitioner to submrt its objections and^the documentary evidence in support of the submissions^{andpersonal hearing.}

¶19

lA NO:1 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthatin the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant}

¶21

{ I t * I i I I

¶22

stay of all the further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order of the^'lst Respondent dated 16.6.2023, for the assessment tax period 2O14-15 to 2017-18, under the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, as otherwise the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY Counsel for the Respondents: Mis. C.ROHINI SUNITHA, AGP FOR CT

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

-7

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{P.SAM KOSHY}

¶27

AND

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI^{NARAYANA ALISHETTY}

¶29

Writ Petition No.2729O of 2023

¶30

ORDER : (per Hon'ble Si Justice P,SAM^KOSHY)

¶31

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the^order passed by the l"t respondent in D.C. Order No.307,^dated 16.06.2023, (for short, 'the impugned^order') lor the tax period 2074-15 to 2Ol7-18 under the Telangana^Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Act').

¶32

Heard Mr. Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy,^learned counsel for the petitioner ernd^{Ms.C. RohiniSunitha,} learned Assistant Government Pleader for^{CommercialTax,} for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

¶33

The primary contention of learned^{counselfor the} petitioner is that the impugned order is in^{violation of} principles of natural^justice and that the^{petitioner was} never a-fforded an opportunity to^{give a reasonablereply to} the show-cause notices issued by the^{respondents' In fact,}

¶34

¶35

;-t \ -+! ''a, \

¶36

all the notices^,,r.hich rvere said to^{have been issuedagainst} the petitioner \r,ere all served on the^{petitionerjust one day} prior to passing of the impugned order, i.e., on 16.06.2023

¶37

On the prcvious date of hearing, i.e., on^O3.1O.2O23, this Court directed the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent-Department^{to seek instructions} AS regards the service of show-cause notices on^the petitioner.

¶38

Hou,ever, the learned counsel for the^petitioner submittecl thert the so-called show-cause notices which^were issued to thc petitioner on 23.O5.2023, 31.05.2023 and Oa.O6.2023, were atl issued with a direction to the respondent No.4 to eflect service of the said show-cause notices on the petitioner. He further contended all the aforesaid show-cause notices were for the fist time served on the petitioner after the respondent No.4 had called upon the petitioner at his oflice on 15.06.2023.

¶39

To-day, when the matter is taken up for^hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercia-l^Tax,

¶40

-. -^.*T

¶41

¶42

appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5, after verification from the respondent-Department, submitted that the aforesaid show-cause notices which were issued to the petitioner were all served upon the petitioner only on 15.06.2023 as is reflected from the records. However, there does not seem to be any other material available with the respondent-Department to show whether the notices were duly served on the petitioner or not other than on 15.06.2023.

¶43

It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that 16.06.2023 was the last date within which the 4th respondent could have passed the revisional order and there is no reason why the 4th respondent hastily served the show-cause notices on the petitioner on 15.06.2023.

¶44

During the course of hearing, what is reflected is that the order which was said to have been revised was one which was passed on 17.06.2019 by the 2"d respondent. As such, the 4th respondent had only a limitation of four year

I \

-=lE,- \ -ri..Ja

period al<l the for-rr^{year periodwas admittedly coming to} arr end by 16.06.2023

¶49

g, In the givcn lactual background,^{when the show-cause} notices issued by the^{respondent-Departmentitself have} been effectivcly served on the^{petitioner only on L5.06.2023} and the impugned revisional^{order being passed only on} 16.06.2023. u'e have no hesitation^{inholding that the} petitioner has not been given a fair and reasonable^{period of} time to respond to the impugned^{show-causenoticesto} delend his case before the 4ft respondent^{before the} impugned ordcr u,as passed.

¶50

In the aforesaid given admitted factual matrix^{of the} case, we are inclined to hold that the impugned^order passed by the 1"r respondent in D.C.Order No.307, dated 76.06.2023, for the tax period 2OI4-15 to 2Ol7-18, is^one which has been passed in sheer violation of principles^of natural justice and the same is therefore untenable and deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. The^Writ Petition stands allowed

¶51

¶52

¶53

1S 11. Given^{the fact that the impugnedorder} being interfered^{on the groundof it being in violation of principles} of natural^{justice, the petitionerwould be at liberty to give a} reply^{to the impugned show-causenotice by 31.10.2023} Upon^{receipt of such reply lrom the petitioner, the 4th} respondent^{is atliberty to pass afresh order duly} considering^{the reply submittedby the petittoner.}

¶54

Accordingly,^{the writ petition is a-llowed.No costs.}

¶55

13.^{As a sequel, miscellaneousapplications pending if any,} shall^{stand closed.}

¶56

SDI K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR @ SECTION OFFICER

¶57

//TRUE COPY/i

¶58

¶59

1 The Joint^{Commissioner (ST), WarangalDivision,Warangal.} 2 The Deputy^{CommercialTax Officer/ StateTaxOfficer (l/C), Office of Joint} Commissioner^{(ST), WarangalDivision,Warangal.}

¶60

3 The Commercial^{Tax Officer, RamannapetCircle, Warangal.} 4 The Assistant^{Commissioner(ST), Warangal Urban-lll Circle, Warangal.} 5 The Principal^{Secretary to Government, Revenue (CT-ll) Department,} Secretariat,^{Hyderabad,State of Telangana.}

¶61

b One CC^{to SRI KARTHIKRAMANA PUTTAMREDDY, Advocate} [OPUC] 7 Two CCs to GP^{FOR CON/MERCIALTAXES, High Court for the State of} Telangana,^{at HYderabad.} [OUT]

¶62

8 Two CD CoPies PSK. CJP \ .)--

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 111012023

ORDER

WP.No.27290 of 2023

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶68

-.;l
1>
1<br>

M/s. a. Narotham Reddy v. Joint Commissioner (St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. a. Narotham Reddy v. Joint Commissioner (St)

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

Sri Hari Raju Penmatsa Vs The Commercial Tax Officer And Another

Rangu Suma and 3 Others Vs Jangam Mariyamma and 2 Others

The a.P.S.R.T.C., Vs P. Rajamani

P Murray, Secunderabad and 3 Others Vs M Mallesha, Hyderabad and 2 Others

M/S.Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal

A.Narsinga Rao Vs Assistant Commissioner of Incoeme Tax