M/s. Shree Ganesh Enterprises v. Commercial Tax Officer and another
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-12-28. M/s. Shree Ganesh Enterprises v. Commercial Tax Officer and another. Read the judgment and case...
Judgment text
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction) IMONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT RAO THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. S. RAMACHANDRA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD WRIT PE TITION NO: 22 5 0F 2020 Between: Proprietor, I\'4r' Sub hash Dhanrajaji Jain, M/s. Shree Ganesh Enterprises, rep. by its 101 ilr-r+iii, rl"* coveinment Hospithl, lrlahabubabad-506 ' ... PETITIONER AND 1. commercial Tax officer, Mahabubabad circle, warangal Division' Warangal' i, StutJ of Telangana, rep. ny its Principal Secretary to Government' Revenue (CT-ll) Department, Secretariat' Hyderabad ... RESPONDENTS constitution of lndia praying that in the Petition under Article 226 of llte circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighcourtmaybep|easedto direction quashing appropriate writ or order or issue a writ of certiorari or any other theimpugnedorderofthelstRespondentpassedinAoNo. 3T,l2ldated2Tl3l202o year 20. 1 5.
16 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as passed in for the assessment the name of a wrong entity, as being illegal and in violation of principles of natural Petitioner for the Respondent to re-assess the and consequently direct the 1't . justice year2015-l6,aftergivingpropershowcausenoticeinaccordancewithRule64of file objections and a personal the Telangana VAT Rules, 2005 and an opportunity to hearingandthereafterpassassessmentorderinaccordancewithlaw. IA NO: 1 OF 2020 praying in the circumstances stated in the Petition under section 151 cPC that affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of recoveryofthedisputeddemandofRs. 4,BT,25,655/-pursuanttotheimpugnedorder ofthelstRespondentdated2Tl3t2O2Ofortheassessmentyear20l5-l6underthe CST Act, 1956, pending disposal of the Writ Petition aS otherwise the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardshiP. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. S. DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M.
GOVIND REDDY, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following: ORDER . "4 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. S. RAMACHANDRA RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD WRIT PETITION NO . 2280s OF 2020 (r", ,,, r,##o*'o ^oo) In this writ Petition, the petitioner assails the Assessment order A. O. No. 37121 dt. 2l . O3. 2O2O passed by the 1't respondent under the CST Act, 1956 for the Period 2015-16. 2, According to the petitioner, a notice dt. 10. 11. 2020 was received by the petitioner fiom the office of the 1'1 respondent on 16'11'2020 demanding a sum of Rs. 4,87,25,655/-as an outstanding tax demand; and the petitioner then secured a copy of the Assessment order on 16. 11. 2020 from the office ofthe 1't respondent. 3. The petitioner contends that though the impugned order refers to a show-cause notice, reminder notice dt. 20. ll . 2019 and final notice dt. 06. 03.
2020 and states that the petitioner did not file objections or avail personal hearing, none of these notices were served on the petitioner and personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner. 4. Sri M. Govind Reddy, leamed Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing lor the respondents does not dispute that no show-cause notice or other notices were served on the petitioner and no personal hearing was attorded to the petitioner. 5. We are satisfied that non-service of show-cause notice on the petitioner and denial of personal hearing caused grave plejudice to the petitioner and there has been violation of principles of natural justice callsing pre. iudice to the petitiorler. Also, the said Assessrnent order i. r, admittedly passed after lockdown has been irnposed by the State and central Governrnents on account of the covid- rg pandernic when ,o Govemment otfices, except those dealing with emergency services, were functioning. 6.
Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed; the impugned Assessment Order A. O. No. 3712l dt. 27. 03. 2020 passed by the l,trespondent and the demand notice dt. l 0. 1 1 . 2020 issued by the 1't respondent are both set aside; the matter is remitted back to the 1'r respondent for fresh consideration; the l't respondent shall serve a show-cause notice on the petitioner indicating the tumover proposed to be taxed and the tax proposed to be levied thereon in accordance with Rule 61(l)(b) of the TVAT Rules,2005; rhe peritionei is granted (6) weeks time f. om the date of receipt ol the said show-cause notice to file objections thereto along with supporting nrateriar; a personai hearing shall be given to the petitioner by the l,r respondent; and then a reasoned order shalr be passed by the 1'r respondent in accordance with law and communicated to the petitioner. No costs. 7. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ petition shall stand closed. SD/. B.
SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Commercial Tax Officer, l\,4ahabubabad Circle, Warangal Division, Wa ra nga l. (CT-ll) Department, State of z. The Frincipal Secretary to Government, Revenue Telangana. Secretariat. Hyd era bad. 3. One Ct to Sri S. Dwarakbnath, Advocate [OPUC] Taxes 4. On" CC to Sri N/. Govind Reddy, Special Counsel for Commercial [oPUC] 5. Two CD Copies CHR \_. ;- HIGH COURT DATED:2811212020 ',ll 1 HE s TA a ORDER o 0iJAil 202,1 W. P. No. 22805 of 2020 * * o ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS k
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.