Allowed

M/s Vishupriya Constructions v. The Union of India

Telangana HC11 Aug 2023WP/44514/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenged an assessment order under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, alleging violation of natural justice by denying a proper personal hearing. The High Court quashed the order for lack of fair hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings dated 03.03.2022 are quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to enter appearance before the respondent No.2 for a fresh hearing.

M/s Vishupriya Constructions Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

13386I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO:44514 OF 2022

¶9

Between:

¶10

M/s Vishupriya Constructions, Represented by its^{MannagingPartlgr} Sri,D.Narayan'a Reddy, S/o. D.Ram Re{dy, Office^{at.H.No.4-27,} Hanumanwada, Dhanwada Mandal, Narayanpet^{District, Telangana.}

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, Central^{Boardof lndirect Taxesand} Customs New Delhi, Rep by Secretary.

¶14

The Commissioner of Central Tax, Ranga^{Reddy Diskict, GST} Commissionerate, Posenet Bhavan, Tilak^{Road, Ramkote, Hyderabad.}

¶15

The Assistant CommissSoner, Central^{Goods and Ser.Tax' Division-} lV(Sangli), Sangli-Miraj road, Miraj, Maharasthra-4164¹⁰

¶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 Courtmay be} pleased to iSSUe a writ, order or direction more^{particularly one in nature of Writ of} Mandamus or any other appropriate^{writ in the natureof mandamusandquash} and set aside the impugned^{best judgment assessmentorder o. 26212020-} Adjn(commr)sT dt.03.03.2022^{issuedby the respondent No.2 as illegal,unlawful,} u nconstitutional in violation^{of principlesof naturaljustice and in violationof Rule} 142,the sec.73 of the Finance Act,^1994.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J.VENUDHAR^REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1:^{SRIB.MUKHARJEE FOR SRIGADI} PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR^{GENERAL OF INDIA} Counsel for the Respondent No.2:^{SRI J.V.PRASAO,SC FOR CT} Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI^{DOMINIC FERNANDIS, SC FORCT}

¶19

The Court made the followidg: ORDER

¶20

l llll llON'Bl,E SRI JUSTICE P.SANI KOilrlY

¶21

ANT)

¶22

THE HON'I}I,T- SRI JTISTICE LAXMI NARA'ANA^,!.LISTIETTY ' V RIT PETITION No. 44514 of )022

¶23

O R f) E R^,,',,'r'llr t 'tlL'^{Sri .lusrir<' P.SAM KOSHY)}

¶24

Heard \1r.. \cnudhar Reddy, learned counsel fol^{the petitioner,}

¶25

Mr.B.Mul ha"re^j, leamed counsel representing^{<,n belralf of Mr.Gadi} Praveen Kut.tt: , learned Dcputy Solicitor^{Gr:neral ol' India.for} responcient i'lo l, Mr.J.V.l)rasad,^{Iearred SenicrStart:ing Coutlsel,} appearing lirr :l :^'espondent No.2 and Mr.Dominicl:en^{'rl;tndis. lealned} counsel appear-i rg ltrr respondent No.3. Perused the^{rniltc. ial on recorci.}

¶26

2.^-fhc irstarl writ pctition has been filed assailing^{.h,: o-del dated}

¶27

03.03.202-l pas^re,J by thc respondent No.2 in rrocerri ngr^initiated under Sectron 7⁽ L) of the l;inance Act, 1994

¶28

One ol th( )r rnary contentions raised by the leanrerl^{c,runsel for} the petitioner ir that he has not been^granted ample^{ol)portunityof} hearing b-'forc the impugncd proceedings \, as p,rs:;ed i.e.. on 03.03.202:. L,-'r n'red counsel fbr the petitioner lurthtr sutrmits^that e/en ncce:isala.' pr:rsonal hearing rvas also not flrante I ancl that the authorilr, cor-rcc'r rcd Droceeded and decided the rnrttter it r trechatrical

¶29

'ril.i:

¶30

manner and in contravention to their own circular No. 1053/02/2017_

¶31

CX, issued in so far as personal hearing is conccrned.

¶32

The further challenge by the petitioner in this writ petition is that the respondent No.3 is from the State of Maharashtra and had already initiated similar proceedings against the petitioner before whom the petitioner had entered appearance and submitted his entire defence u,hich was accepted by the respondent No.3 u,ho closed the proceedings. Hence, thc petitioner cannot be subjected to furth er prosecution again under the same provision of law in the State of Telangana also by the respondent No.2.

¶33

On the previous date of hearing, this Cour-t directed the counsel for the Department to seek instructions, particularly in respect of the reasonable opportunity of hearing given to the petitioner or not, belore passing the impugned proceedings.

¶34

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr.Dominic Femandis, learned counsel for the Department, on instructions would submit that show cause notice was duly served upon the petitioner, but the petitioner had not responded. Thereafter, notice for personal hearing was also issued. Since there was no response from the petitioner, the Department had no other option, but to progeed further

¶35

¶36

and passecl h<' rrnpugned proceedings. Accordinli to the learned counsel lbr tl e Departllcnt, siuce the petitioncr wil.i n()n rr.sponsive, both to the ;h ,r,' cause notice and also to the notice tssl ed for personal hcaring, 11 rr u^. Prr.sumeil that the petitioner dot.s not il tend to contest the pro-'ecrli L-r.rs and uncler the circumstznces, _he impugned procecdi lg-s ii rs; no1 warrant interlbrence.

¶37

Havi,rg lr, ald the contentions put forth cn eitlt(." s de and on pcrusal ol rt'r:r rc, rvhat is appalcnt is the fact thet the t.e .,pondents have issueci a;irr:,r u'No.l05 l/02/2017-CX, dated I ).01.2 l,', dealing with issuance .r1'p,'. scnal hearirrg rvhich reads as follcws

¶38

4..i 'ersonal Ilearing: After having given lr fair r',ppr,r urrity to rhc notice lor replying to th(' ..ho.^ ( auri.' r.rorice, the adjudication author.ity nlay froc-',^{dr; t,.r fix a datc and tirnefbr personal} lreirring in th,' :ase and rcquest the assessee to alpear [r.,for e hirr ii r r personni hearing by hirnself or thr,c.rgh an a utl or z,:d rel)resentative. At Lrast I hree t-pp,.rr. rrrities ol'personal hearing should be given u'itl : .rf li ient interral of time so that the nLrtice nrar, r vrril opportunity o1' being heard. Se p.Lrate conrrr Lnication should be rnade to tht' noti:t: for eacl i rt,:rva[. The Adjudicating autholity n a,,, i1s rfllr:i^.nt causc is shown, at any stitlte ol proccc lings adjourn the hearing for re rsons r., b,: trcorii d in u,ritinq. Horvever, no such e djourrrrent shall b ' iilanted nrore than three times to a notjc,..

¶39

' 'i-'.,. 'i

¶40

¶41

On a query put to the learned counscl fbr tl-re Departrnent. he fairly concedes that except for one notice.for personal hearing issued to the petitioner, no further notice is issued

¶42

Given the said circumstances of the case, we are inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings on the ground that the petitioner is being denied of fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing, more particularly, when the master circular of the Department itself mandates for providing atleast th-ree opportunities of hearing. The impugned proceedings are therefore not sustainable and deserve to be quashed and set aside.

¶43

Accordingly, the impugned proceedings dated 03.03.2022 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to enter appearance before the respondent No.2 on or before 20.09.2023. It is further directed that there would be no further notice be issued to the petitioner. The petitioner, in addition to whatever the representations he has made before respondent No.2, he is permitted to make a^fresh representation including^{jurisdictional} aspects which he intends to^raise before the respondent No.2 on the said date of hearing. The respondent authorities thereafter, expected to take a^fresh decision strictly^{on its} own merits and in accordance^with[aw.

¶44

¶45

I L W ith rh,: b:vc obscr.r,ation and direction. the V, r.it pe titio, is

¶46

allowed. No or lcr as to costs.

¶47

12 As a :;eq rc . .niscellarreous applications penc ing il a .ry in this w.rit

¶48

pctition, shall s and closecl

¶49

//TRUE COPY//

¶50

SI)/ R.}IARTHIKEYAN ASSI];-tANT REGISTRAR

¶51

S =CTION OFFICER

¶52

¶53

1 The Secretary. Jrion of lndia, IVinistry of Finance, rlentra I i:ioa-d of lndirect Taxes and Cus orns New Delhi

¶54

2 The Comrrissr< rerr of Central Tax, Ranga Reddy D strrct, G,jT Commissronr-'rz .e Posenet Bhavan, Til;k Road,'Ramiote, lyd,:rabad

¶55

3 The Assistant⁽ crnnrissioner, centrar Goods and sr:rvice i,,i. I)ivisionlVrSanghr Sl^ lr.Mrraj road, Mrraj. Maharasthra_41541-0.

¶56

4 One CC tt) SI]I I,/ENUDHAR REDDY, Advocate IC)PUC;] 5 One CC to SI]I ]I\DI PRAVEEN KUI,/IAR, oy soLicrioit I;EI,IERAL oF rNDrA [OF,UC ]

¶57

o One CC k, Slil^r / PRASAD, Advocare IOPUCI

¶58

7 One CC tc, Stil X)rVlNtC FERNANDTS hdrocdte [()pUC

¶59

B Two CD Copr s

PSK,

t.s

CC TODAY

HIGH COURl

DATED:1 'llDt¹¹¹⁰²³

ORDER

WP.No.4451t of²⁰²²

l' , .'' .r, I .l
r., (.
/
/;;
lrI -_-r 1 \ [\J]:isfJ
l.-.<br>

¶68

ALLOWING THE^{WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT⁽ OSTS.

¶69

.D
<br>N
L
fr;.,,

M/s Vishupriya Constructions v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Vishupriya Constructions v. The Union of India

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

Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise

M/s. Hame Trading Company Vs Commercial Tax Officer

M/s. Hame Trading Company Vs Commercial Tax Officer

A.P.Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd, Hyderabad. Vs Union of India, Rep by Its Sec, Min of Fin,New Delhi and 2 Oth

M/s. Lakshmi Finance and Industrial Corporation Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Backbone Projects Limited Vs The State of Telangana