Allowed

Affluence Engineering and Enterprises Ltd, v. Union of India and 02 Others

Telangana HC3 Oct 2023WP/6916/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of two identical writ petitions challenging the rejection of cross-examination permission. Relying on a prior order, the court set aside the rejection, directed the authorities to recall show cause proceedings, and ensured cross-examination would occur on a case-by-case basis.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed by reference to identical prior order; authorities directed to recall show cause proceedings and ensure cross-examination on case-by-case basis.

Affluence Engineering and Enterprises Ltd… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^{3386 ]}

¶2

" ^- ^ H'IGH^{c ou Rr'} ?til:'j.+lia".*::i(SPecial^Originat

¶3

rffisDAYrHEJS'XRJ+x'3',5',??--?"'I

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

E SRI^{JUSTICEP'SAM KOSHY} THE^HONOURABL AND

¶6

MI^{NARAYANAALISHETTY} THE HONOURABLE WRIT^SRt PE^JUSTICE TtTlo^N Noi^LAX 6916^OF20 21

¶7

Between: , 1r Dramises^{No a,} ireelf-P" Hlf;I:

¶8

ffi:ilff,',H,?.:,'","J#'11:"f'l':'8H'rth'"';J""*I3?'3'*t""ffi^-

¶9

AND

¶10

P,l':1.11'xf^{i3;llBii'I j,i'S,o%:f i7o'Jo?*n'"..:::,**"""'Ministryor} i'*t and^{Customs'At North Block' New Delhi}

¶11

The^{Central Board of} '"d'*tt

¶12

.7 #*t,***t,ii:ltsf^{E#i:il"'-%3?sl3'JffiJllt."Js3'1t"oo?looooo}

¶13

.....RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition^{Under Article 226 of lheconstitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith'the High Court maybe} pleased to^{issue a writ' orderor direction' more particularlyonein the nature of} writ of^{mandamus, quashingthe impugned retter dated 1olo3t2o21 in scN} No.06/2019-20-OOj(n'-)-O"-n'O'^{communicatingthedecision ofthe} Respondent^{No'3 herein'of rejecting permission for cross-examination'as} illega[.,^{arbitrary and violative of Articles 19(1) (g)' 20 and21 of the Constitution} of lndia

t.A. No: 10F 20 21

petition Under Se cPc pravirrs th in the arndavit il; .::11''151 of the petition'^{- " 'at in the circumstances} stated stay the adjudication or.'ooo* bv court mav be pleased to dated 19/03/20r, ,, a;:.":dings ^u.oono"r,^,High he re n, p eno n; ;;i ; ;;I J;?"T#:#::',H, : ::':T"j x,;::::

¶19

Counsel for the petitione t*'sRlNlvAS cHl\TuRvEDULA counser for the Respono,tt KITTSHNA REDD' (sc FoR cBEc) rhe court made the ,",,.i;t;:::'ioo

¶20

rl'
I

¶21

THE I{ON'BI,E SRI^{JUS'I'ICE,P.SAM KOSHY}

¶22

ANT)

¶23

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

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.69l6 of 2O2l

¶25

ORI)ER:(per Hon' bl c,Sri^.lu.sr ice P.SAM KOSHY)

¶26

When the matter is taken up for hearing^today, it^{has been} informed by the parlies that two identical^{writ petitionsi.e.,} W.P.nos.6866 and 6857 of 2021^{has already beenallowed and}

¶27

disposed of vide order dated 27 .09.2023

¶28

In view of the fact that the identical^{matter has alreadybeen}

¶29

disposed of by this Court, rvc are inclined to^{dispose o1'the present writ} petition also, in terms of the order passcd in W.P.Nos.6866 and 6857

¶30

of 2021 decided on 27 .09.2023 in identical terms

¶31

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this rvrit

¶32

petition, shall stand closed. No order as to cosrs

¶33

s D/' MoH^{D s|tttHi'#1fl+'St}

//TRUE coPY/,

aEIT(R,-FFICER

The Joint^{Secretary,Unionof lndia' D-e^Partmentof Revenue' Ministry of} ' ii;;;;:'"t N;rth liiock, New Delhi^'1'10001' 2. The Central^{Board of l"dil;i i;;;'a'iJbuttomt' At North Block' New Delhi}

¶38

. illof8Jiti"nal^{/Joint commissioner centralrax' HvderabadGST} Commissionerate'^{GST'B#;;;LB5i'Jiumno'o'Hvderabad-500004'} 4. il;'CCi;^{s;i sriiiru. Chaturvedula'Advocate-[oPUCl} ;. il;;6 i;^{s;in.ni'", f i'r'i'j-C"oJv (sc FoR-cBEC)[oPUC]}

¶39

iA,"li"-?R3:%?'rrt^{o.0",.ot :27toet2o23in w P No' 6866 and 6857 or 2021)} SA GJPks

-a

HIGH COURT

DATED:03110t2023

ORDER

WP.No.6916 of 2021

1t+ E s rAr.i
a!
!r 20 0cT ?m
+ .1"..-,.--'"i&).;/-t
, -::.:..:,:- '_'1//

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

-:--7

l,/

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

¶51

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI^{NARAYANAALISHETTY}

¶52

W.P. Nos. 6857 and 6a66 of2O2t

¶53

COMMON ORDER:^(per Hon'ble Sn Justice P.SAM KOS,HY

¶54

Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned Senior Counsel for Central Taxes appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 in both the writ petitions

¶55

The present writ petitions have been frled assailing the action on the part of respondent No.3 in rejecting the request of the petitioner vide order dated 10.03.2021 seeking to permit to cross examine the witnesses whose statements are referred to ald relied upon in the show cause notice d.ated, 30.12.2019 issued against the petitioner.

¶56

This court, while entertaining the writ petitions had granted interim orders in favour of the petitioner from proceeding further with the show cause notice dated 30.12.2019.

¶57

¶58

Respondent Nos. I to 4 had already entered appearance and had filed their counter affidavit. In the said counter affidavit, the respondents had taken a specilic stand, which is reproduced herein:

¶59

,.6.2. It is submittr revenue involved 1o-jn"t,^{in view of the} huge amount of udiudi.ati;; ;;;..111 '"0".t^delav in triing rp'- tr,". rs considered, r o oa ioli,.," ["",".: on case i::: t" ..". u."li"[;:;.:";.,n" g .:;r#i ff :1.",: rerevance":llll

¶60

¶61

for the adjudication proceedings. The same is intimated to the pctitioners vide lctters dated 2|.O7.2O21".

¶62

However, from the perusal of the pleadings, we find that the said order of the recalling of the letter dated lO.O3.2O2l v/as not part of the return and therefore, had insrtructed the counsel for the respondents to make available the said cLocument dated 23.O7.2027.

¶63

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Iearned counsel for the Department had produced the^{correspondencedated} 23.07.2021 passed by the^{Additional Commissioner,wherein, it is} stated that the respondent^{authorities.had recalled the impugned} office letter dated^{10.03.2021whichis un'fer challenge in the present} writ petition. While^{recailingthe said order dated 10'03'2021' the} authorities^{concerned, however, made an observation that the} petitioner^{would be permitted to crossexamine the witnesses'} However,^{the cross examination shallbe on caseto case basis'basing} on the relevance^{for adjudicationproceedingls'}

¶64

The learned^{ScniorCounselfortht: PetitioneronlY has an} apprehension,^{that the said point whictr has been put by the} respondents^{whilepassing the recail order dated23 'O7 '2021 should} not mean^{that the respondents would arbitrarily denycross} eXamination^{o[ the relevantwitnesseswhose statements are referred} to^{and reiied upon in the show cause notic:' It goes withoutsaying} that^{once when the Oepartment has gratrted permission to cross} examine^{the relevant *'t""t""=the auttLorities are expectedto takea}

¶65

¶66

¶67

pragmatic^{view on the request of the petitionerso far as the cross} examination^{is concernedNonetheless'the petitioneralsoshould not} subject^{the witnessesby unnecessarilycrossexaminingon irrelevant} issues^{or inrespect of matters which are not reflectedinthe} statement^{of the said witnesses'}

¶68

ln^{view of the aforesaid observations 'and in the light of the} order^{dated23 'O7 '2021'the presentwrit petitions stands disposed of'} The^{authorities concerned are directedto ensurethat the show cause} proceedings^{are recalled at the eariiest and the petitioner also should} render^{all co-operation inthe show causeproceedingsand shali} ensure^{that the cross examinationis carried out at the earliest' No} order^{as to costs '}

¶69

Consequently,^{miscellaneouspetitions pending'if any'shall stand}

¶70

closed

¶71

P.SAM^KOSHY'J

¶72

LAXMI NARAYANA^ALISHETTY'J

¶73

27th Septembet,²⁰²³ Put

Affluence Engineering and Enterprises Ltd, v. Union of India and 02 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Affluence Engineering and Enterprises Ltd, v. Union of India and 02 Others

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

M/s.Sunbeam Speciality Alloys Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St) Ltu and another

M/s.Mahasethu Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/s.Mahasethu Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

Nektar Therapeutics (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Srr Enterprises Vs The Additional Commissioner (Appeals-Ii)

V.S. Ferrous Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India