Allowed

Sri Hari Raju Penmatsa v. The Commercial Tax Officer And Another

Telangana HC10 Oct 2023WP/31967/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging assessment orders and revision passed beyond the statutory limitation period. The court noted the limit extension amendment was struck down by the Division Bench as unconstitutional. Consequently, the orders exceeding the original four-year limit were quashed.

What did the court decide?

The effectual order and the revisional order dated 30/03/2020 and 30/03/2022 are set aside and quashed.

Sri Hari Raju Penmatsa Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸⁶¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JII'STICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 31967 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri Hari Raju Penmatsa, Proprietor of M/s.Sneha Graphics, Chikkadpally,^Hyderabad - 500 020. Rep. by its Manager Mr.P.Vankata Ramaiah.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The Commercial Tax Officer, Gandhinagar Circle, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Statp of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,^{Revenue (CT)} Department, Telangana Secletariat, 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 maybe} pleased to issue Writ of Mandaryrus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or direction declaring the action of the 1St Respondent in^{passingthe Original} Assessment Proceedings, dated 30/03/2020 for the tax^{period April, 2017lo} June,2017 under the Central Salps Tax Act^{'1956, in the name of Sri Hari Raju} Penmatsa, instead of Mis.Sneha Graphics, which is a^{proprietary concern,} without serving Notice and without^{granting sufficient opportunityof being heard} to the Petitioner, without assigning any^{good and sufficient reasons, as arbitrary,} contrary to law, barred by limitation for the^{tax periodApril,2017 to June,2017'} the same is in violation of Principles of^{NaturalJustice, without jurisdiction, and} consequently set aside the AssesFment Proceedings^{of the 1g respondent, dated}

¶16

3010312022, which was served on the Petitioner on 0BlOOl2022 by RPAD, as null and void

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Assessment Proceedings of the 1St Respondent, dated 30/03/2022 passed Exparte, for the tax period April, 2017 to June,2017 under Central Sales Tax Act 1956, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, as othemrrise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SHAIK JEELANI BASHA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX (TG)

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

-.1;

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

¶24

AND

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶26

W.P. No. 3L967 of 2Cr22

¶27

ORDER: /per Ao n'ble Sri Justbe P.SAII KOSHY)

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel lbr Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents. Perused the record

¶29

The instar-rt r,r,rit petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 30.03.2020 which is an effectual order passed by respondent No.1 consequent to revisional order being passcd on 30.O3.2022.

¶30

The point of issue r4ised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present writ petition is that under the provisions of Section 3214) of the Tclangana Valuc Added Ta-x Act, 2005 (hereinafter refepred to as 'the Act'), the Revisional Authority could have revised the order within a period of four⁽⁴⁾ years i.e, four years starting from the date of the order in original passed. The revisional order and the effectuai order both have been passed much after a period of four^{years. Bothbeing} much beyond the period of fr,ru r years^{prescribedunder Section} 32 $l of the Act. The Department seems lo^{have proceeded with}

¶31

¶32

.i
-'r-

¶33

tlie revisior-r in terms of em ame;-rclrrent bror-1ght to Section 32 (.ll of the Acrt, extending the period of limitation frorn four (4) ),,-,,r.rs to six (6) yeals. However, the said amendment to Sectio n 32 $J of the AcL itself was subjected to chaliengc irr a i;atch of u,r.it pctitions befcre the Division Bench of this Court in case of Sri Srt Engineering Works and. Others ys. Deputg Commissioner (CT) and others. The leacling case of which is W.P.No.7893 of 2021. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.O7.2022 trad held the arnendment to br: ri, constitutional and devoid of legislative crompetencLr. The H;gh Cour t, as a conseqllence, had set asicle / quashc,cl the notices issrreri thercin a.d orders passed under Se<-tion 32 (li) oi the A(:t. and allowed the batch of writ petitions.

¶34

Though it has been submitted that tlre above sajd orcler passed by the Division Bench ol this Court is under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, there is no interim order stayin.g the effect of operation of lre said order. As a consequence, undisputedlv, the amended provision does not exist alter the judgment of the Division Be,ch of t!-ris court in the case of Sri Sri Englneering Works lsupra) has been passed. That after, the same had been declerrcd unconstitutional by the Division Bench of this Court and the same could not had

¶35

¶36

{ *7rf

¶37

been invoked by the respondent authorities for exercising the revisional powers. It is in this respect that the Bench hearing the writ petition at the admission stage had gralted an interim protection vide order dated 05.09.2023, The aforesaid factual matrix of the case is undisputed ald is factual in nature so far as revisional order and the effectual order having been passed beyond a period of four years and as the period prescribed under Section 32 (4) of the Act (unamended) and the provision which as on the date is in operation.

¶38

So far as the amendment to the period of four years iimitation prescribed under the said Act having been extended to six years, the same as has been said earlier has already been struck down by this Cor]rrt in the aforesaid batch of writ petitions. The order of the Division Bench, striking down the amended provision has not been interfered with or stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Srr Srz Engtneerlng Works (Supra), The amended prgvision once when it has been struck down by the Division Bench of this Court, the same provision could not had been brought into force by the respondents and the action therefore per se is without jurisdiction and competence.

¶39

, l

¶40

¶41

We have no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that the effectual order and the revisionai order on the basis of which thc effectual order has been passed, being beyond the period of for-rr 1,ears as is required under Section 32 $) of the Act are not sustainable and the same deserves to be and are accordingll, set asicie l quash ed.

¶42