M/S. Kl Hi-Tech Secure Print Ltd. Vs C.T.O. and Another

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^{praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affrdavit filed therewith,^{the High Court maybe} pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction^particularly one in the nature^of writ of [Vlandamus declaring the impugned order dt. 12109108^{and 1411012008} passed by the 1st respondent for the assessment^year 2005-06^{(CST)as illegal,} arbitrary and unjustified and set aside the same.

¶16

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2008(WPMP. NO: 30216 OF 2008)

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Court maybe pleased to} stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs. 1,07,79,59E1-^{for the assessmentyear} 2005-06 (CST) pursuant to the order dt.^{14-10-2008passed by the 1st} Respondent during the^pendency of the above^{writpetition.}

-,_

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

Between:

Commercial Tax Officer,^{Jubilee Hills Circle,lvla iur KishalComplex,} Hyderabad.

¶22

...PETITIONER

¶23

AND

¶24

1 Ivl/s KL Hi-Tech Secure Print Ltd,^{Plot No 230, pe;1r No. 36, JubileeHills} Hyderabad, Rep. by its trilanaging^{Director Smt. K. Rarra Lakshmi}

¶25

2 The Addrtional Commissioner^{(CT),EnforcementWing} ,^Hyderabad.

¶26

...RESPONDENTS

¶27

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in thr: crrcumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Oo rt may be pleasedto} vacate the interim stay Order^{granted rn WPMP. No. 30211of 2008 in WP' No} 23.i99 of 2008 dated 24llotzoo\ in the^{interestof justice:rr d equity as otherwise} the petitioner will be^put to irreparable^{loss and severeharc;hip.}

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA^{IYENGAR,Sr. )OUNSEL}

¶29

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP^OORILLA,

¶30

SPL. GP FOR STATE TAX

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 23198 OF 2008

¶32

Between:

¶33

Iril/s. KL Hi-Tech Secure Print Limited, Plot^{No.230,R I rd No.36,Jubilee Hills} H yderabad -500033, rep. by its tr/lanaging^{Director, Srrt K. RamaLakshmi}

¶34

.PETITIONER

¶35

AND

¶36

1 Commercial Tax Officer, Jubilee Hills^{Circle,tu i yur KishalComplex,} Hyderabad.

¶37

2 The Additional Commisstoner (CT), Enforcement Winrl^Hyderabad.

¶38

..RESPONDENTS

¶39

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{Lr r ia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, tt'e^{High Courtmaybe} pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction particular y one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order dated^1l09.08 &^14.10.2008

¶40

passed by the^'f st respondent for the assessment year 2006-07 (CST) as illegal, arbitrary, and unjustified and set aside the same.

¶41

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008(WPMP. NO: 30215 OF 2008)

¶42

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 stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.'l ,06 ,14.1781- for the assessment^year 2006-07 (CST) pursuant to the order dated 14 1O.2OOB^passed by the^1st respondent during the pendency of the above writ petition.

¶43

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶44

Between:

¶45

Commercial Tax Officer, Jubrlee Hills Circle, lrlayur Kishal Complex, Hyderabad.

¶46

AND

¶47

1 li/is KL Hi-Tech Secure Print Ltd., Plot No 230, Road No.36, Jubilee^Hills, Hyderabad-500033, rep. by its l/anaging Director, Smt. K. Rama Lakshmi

¶48

z The Additional Commissioner (CT), Enforcement Wing, Hyderabad.

¶49

,,.RESPONDENTS

¶50

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^pleasedto vacate the interim stay granted in WPMP. No. 30215 of 2008 in WP^{No. 23198} of 2008 Dated 24-10-2008 in the interest of^justice and equity as otherwise^the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and severe hardship.

¶51

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA IYENGAR, Sr. COUNSEL

¶52

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA,

¶53

SPL. GP FOR STATE TAX

¶54

WRIT PETITION NO: 23200 OF 2008

¶55

Between:

¶56

lV/s. KL Hi-Tech Secure Print Limited, Plot No. 230, Road No.^36,Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033, Rep. by its [Vanaging^{Director Smt. K. Rama} Lakshm i.

¶57

...PETITIONER

¶58

AND

¶59

1 Commercial Tax Officer, Jubilee Hills Circle, l4 ryur^{KishalComplex,} Hyderabad.

¶60

2 The Additional Commissioner (CT), Enforcement Wing Hyderabad.

¶61

...RESPONDENTS

¶62

Petition under Artrcle 226 of the Constitution of lr lia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, !r High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or direction, particul: ly' one in the nature of Writ of lVlandamus declaring the impugned Order, Dated 2.09.08 & 14-10-2008 passed by the 1st Respondent for the assessmentyear 2i 17-08 (CSf) as illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and set aside the same.

¶63

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008(WPMP. NO: 30217 OF 2008)

¶64

Petrtion under Section 151 CPC praying that in tl- r :ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cr rrt nray be pleased to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs. 1,40,69,369/- f r the assessment year 2007 -O8 (CST) pursuant to the order dated 14-10-2AC 3 passed by the 1st Respondent during the pendency of the above Petition.

¶65

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶66

Between:

¶67

Commercial Tax Officer, Jubilee Hills Circle, lt4 rvur Kishal Complex, Hyderabad

¶68

...PETITIONER

¶69

AND

¶70

1 I\I/s KL Hi-Tech Secure Print Limited, Plot No.23r) Road No. 36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033, Rep. by its ltlanaging )rrector Smt. K. Rama Lakshmi.

¶71

2 The Additional Commissroner (CT), Enforcement Winl Hyderabad.

¶72

,..RESPONDENTS

¶73

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cc rrt may be pleased to vacate the interim stay Order granted in WPMP.I'J t 30217 of 2008 in WP No.23200 of 2008 dated 2411012008 in the interest ) tustice and equity as

¶74

otherwise the petitioner will be^put to irreparable^{loss and severehardship,} pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶75

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA IYENGAR, Sr. COUNSEL

¶76

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPL. GP FOR STATE TAX

¶77

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶78

IN'I'H},], HIGIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF'I-]LANGANA AT HYDEIIABAD

¶79

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P.SA}I KOSHY AND

¶80

-I'IIE HONOURABLE Szu JUSTIC I

¶81

SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

¶82

Writ Petition Nos.23 199 23198 and 23200 t f2008

¶83

Date: 06.01.2026

¶84

W.P.No.23l99 of 2008:

¶85

B etween:

¶86

M/s.KL IIi-tech Secure Print Lirnited, Plot No.2i0, Road No.36, Jubilee Ilills, Hyclerabad 500 033.

¶87

Rep by its Managing Director Smt.K.Rama Lakshnri

¶88

. . Petitioner

¶89

AND

¶90

Commercial Tar Offlcer, Jubilee Itills Clircle, Mayur Kishal Complex, Hyderabad and another.

¶91

Respondent s

¶92

COMMON ORDER (per IIon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Ko,, y)

¶93

Heard Mr.Srinivas lyengar, learned senior c(.rnsel lor the petitioner and Mr.Swaroop Oorilla, learned Specril Govemment Pleader for State Tax appearing on behalfofresponJ rnts in all the three writ petitions. Perused the record.

¶94

,

¶95

2

¶96

These are thc three connected writ petitions preferred by the same assessee challenging thc assessment orders passed by rcspondent No.l lor the three assessmen[ years 2007-0g,2006-07 and 2005-06 under challenge in the three r.vrit peritions.^.l.hc primary challenge uiade by the petitioner/assessee was insot-ar as not granting the deductions on the charges involved in the purchase ol consurnables involved in the printing work so also not granting thc deductions on the administrative expenscs like the reuruneratio. made to the Directors and Managing Directors as also the expenses incun-ed in thc maintenance of vehicle charges relatcd to the labour made by the assessee under Rule l7(l)(e) of the APVAT Rules, rvhereas the Revenue has been denying the dcduction so clain.r putting the said charges under Rule l7(l)(g) ol the aforementioned Rules.

¶97

On the previous date of hearing, in the course of the arguments being advanced by the petitioner, it was contended by the learr.red senior counsel for the petitioner that the Assessing Officer for the subsequent years starting ftqm 2008-09 onwards for all subsequent years, have granted ceftain deductions treating those

¶98

3

¶99

charges under Section l7(iXe) itself and not^rnderSection 1 7( 1 Xg). At that -juncture, the Bench^{has direct} I^{the learned} counsel ior the^pctitioner to bring the subsequent^{as; :ssment orders} on record and the learned counscl lor the petitioncr^{have brought} on record the subscquent assessment orders from tlr,^{year 2008-09} till 2016-17 under the provisions of the CS't Act rnd also have brought on record the assessment orders made undcr the^provisions of the VAT Act during the a[oresaid period.

¶100

Upon lrerusal of thc asscssment orders bei r I passed under both the CST Act as also under thc APVAT Act. it a roears that the Assessing Officer did intact has granted ceftain dt:, uctions to the petitioners treating the charges to be one under !i ction 17(1)(e) and at the same time the Assessing Authority ha v : also relused certain deductions to the petitioners and treating tr )se charges to be one under Section 17(1)(g).

¶101

On the plain reading of the aforesaicl^,rders for the subsequent years, it is apparently evident that there appears to be certain deductions which the petitioners even pror ded to in the

¶102

4

¶103

,

¶104

assessrnent orders passed by the Asscssing Authority for the period lrorn 2008-09 onwards which r.vere refused on thc earlier occasron and it is under challcnge in the present rvrit petirion.

¶105

In the light of the subsequent orders having been passed and those assessment orders having gone unchallenged by either of the parties i.c., the assessec as r.vell as revenue goes to show that the assessee as also the revenue were not aggneved ol the decision of thc Assessing Oflicer insofar as the assessment is concemcd lor the subsequcnt period liorn 2008 onwards is concerned.

¶106

In the given cilcumstances, we are of the considered opinion that keeping in vicri,the assessment orders passcd by the respondents tbr the period lrom 2008 onwards the assessrnent orders undcr challenge in these writ petitions i.e., for the period fiom 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 would be requiring a reconsideration by the authorities and lor which we are inclined to remit the matter back to respondent No. I or the concerned jurisdictional Assessing Officer as of now In-charge to reconsider the assessment for the years 2005-06 ,2006-07 and 2007-08 within

¶107

5

¶108

an outel limit ol90 days lrom the date of receipt r¹ a copy oi this order. Needless to mention that the petitioners^rr r rlcl bc lree to raise their coutentions betbre the Assessins Autho r v r.,' ho in-tun-r shall dccide the same on its cxvr.r merits keepirr ir-r i,ier thc subsequent assessment orders relerred to in the ea,l er part ol this order.

¶109