Dismissed

M/s. Pennar Industries Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer

Telangana HC6 Oct 2023WP/27842/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Commercial Tax Officer to decide a rectification application filed under Rule 60 of the TVAT Rules, 2005 within two weeks or before 28 October 2023, as the limitation period for decision was expiring or had expired.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st Respondent to decide the application dated 07.11.2022 filed under Rule 60 within two weeks or before 28.10.2023.

M/s. Pennar Industries Limited Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NOi 27842 OF 2023

¶8

Between

¶9

Mis. Pennar lndustries Limited, Amalgamated entity of Pennar^Engineered Building Systems Limited, 9th Floor, West Wing, DHFLVC Silicon Towers,^Kondapur, Hyderabad - 500 084. Rep., by its Senior Manager, Mr. Sanapureddy Sumanreddy age 35 years

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Commercial Tax Officer, Begumpet Circle, Sth Floor, Pavani Prestige, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (CT-ll) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 an appropriate Writ or Order or-Direction, more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 1st Respondent to consider the Application filed under the Rule 60 of the TVAT Rules, 2005, dated 07.11.2022 filed by the Petitioner for rectifying the Assessment Order dated 29.1O.2019 for the^period 01.04.2015 to 30.06.2017 and to pass necessary orders in an expeditious manner.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶17

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filec in support of the^petition, the High Court^may :e^pleasedto direct the 1st Respondent to consider the Application filed under the Rule 60^of the TVAT Rules, 2005, dated 07.1¹ .2022 tiled by the Petitioner for^{rectif ying the} Assessment orde,r dated 29.10.2019 for the^period 01.04.2015 to 30.06.2017^and to^pass necessary^(lrders in an expeditious^manner.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI I.RAMANA REDOY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDIS

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THB HON'I]LE^{SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY}

¶23

AND

¶24

TTIE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE LAXMINARAYANA ALISHETTY} WRIT PETITI^{ON.No.27842of 2023}

¶25

ORDER:(per^{Hon'ble Sri Justice P'SAM KOSHY)}

¶26

Heard Mr'I.Ramana^{Reddy, learned Standing Counselfor the} petitioner and^{Mr.Dominic Fernandis,learnedcounsel forthe} respondents.^{Perusedthe material on record'}

¶27

2" The instant^{writ petitionhas been flted with a timited prayer of a} direction to^{the 1" respondent to corrsitler the application thatthe} petitioner has^{filedunder Rule 60 of the TclanganaValue Added Tax Act} (forshort.theAct,).Thesaidapplicationaccordingtothepetitionerwas filed on 07.11.2022.

¶28

3.Thecontentionofthelearnedcounselforthepetitioneristhatthe l" respondent^{underRule 60 has to take a'decisionwithin a periodof} four (04)^{years and the period of foul years is comingto an end on} 28.10.2023.

¶29

Learned counsel^{for the respondents however submits that though}

¶30

the assessment^{order was passed on 29.10.2019,the application for} rectificationhasbeenfiledonlyon0T.l|.2022i.e.,.a|grostafterthree

¶31

¶32

years of tirne. Learned counsel for [he dated 06.07 2011 respoudents re lied on the Circu.lar wherein rt has been said rhat the application for rectification can only be entefiained in the case of any clerical rnathelnaticrrl en.ors in the order. or

¶33

). Given the said subrnission by the learned counsel for the respondents an<l also considering the limited p "'r"t^{t.lrat tire} l)etitioner has sought for, rve are or_ the opinion that o.ce o, appl icariorr for rectifi cation is flled by tlre assessee on 07. I1.2022, it is incLrnrbent upon the r " respondent ;-o have hken a decision on the sa,re. 'fhe decision courd havc been eitht_,r. allowin! or disallowing thc pricario,. Norrctheress. trre decision is rvhat is expecred ro be taker t, pafticularly when the provision of Iaw prescribes a period of rimitation for deciding the same.

¶34

In the given fac ts and circumstance of the case, the l.r respondent is directed to takt: a decision on the application dated 07.11.2022 filed under Rule 60 by the petitioner, within a period of two (02) weeks from today or in any evenl, it has to be decided before 2g. 10.2023.

¶35

With the above direction, this Writ petition s ,rc r currort tands disposed of No order as to costs.

¶36

¶37

¶38

(-'onsequently, miscellancous petrtiorls pending, if any, shall stand

¶39

closed.

¶40

//TRUE COPY//

¶41

SD/- V. KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (:9

¶42

SECTiON OFFICER

¶43

To,

¶44

The Commercial Tax^{Officer, Begumpet Circle, sth Floor, Pavani Prestige,} Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

¶45

Z. fnJprincipii Secretary^{to Government,State of Telangana, Revenue (CT-ll)} Deoartment. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶46

One CC to SRI I.RAMANA^{REDDY,Advocate.} [OPUC]

¶47

One CC to SRI DOMINIC^{FERNANDIS, Advocate.} [OPUC]

¶48

Two CD Copies.

BSK

--.:'-.:-

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED: 06110t2023

ORDER

WP.No.27842 of 2023

( 1}}E S14 )'4:
,<
e
o
,I t-)
fl6 0[Tilm
\ '-:
<br>-....

¶58

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

M/s. Pennar Industries Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Pennar Industries Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer

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 M. Ashok Kumar Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Sri M. Ashok Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

The Commissioner Vs M/s. Astrix Laboratories Ltd.

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs Koukuntla Padma and 6 Others

Apple Tree Educational Vs Commissioner of Central Tax

Koukuntla Padma Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation