M/s Padmavathi Cotton Traders v. Commercial Tax Officer and 3 Others
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 2020-12-22. M/s Padmavathi Cotton Traders v. Commercial Tax Officer and 3 Others. Read the judgment and...
Judgment text
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. S. RAMACHANDRA RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD WRIT PETITION NO: 22490 OF 2020 Betwee n: M/s Padmavathi Cotton Traders, 18, Hastinapuram, Hyderabad Rep. by its proprietor l\rlr. Ganta Rajshekhar Reddy S/o Mr. Ganta Satyanarayan Reddy. resident of Hyderabad (state of relangana) ... pETrroNER AND 1 . Commercial Tax Officer, Vanasthali Puram -2 Circle, Saroor Nagar Divrsion, 5th Floor, Kakatiya Hotel, Nampally, H ydera bad. 2. Deputy Commissioner (CT), Saroor Nagar Division, 1st Floor, Near Exhibition Grounds, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Govt. of Telangana, 1st Floor, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Building, Nampally, Hyderabad. 4. The Principal Secretary to Revenue Department, Government of Telengana, Secretariat, HYderabad ... RESP.
NDENTS Petition under Article 226 o'f the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the online final ex-parte assessment order dt. 31/03/2020 passed by the 1st Respondent for the assessment year 2015-16 under the CST Act, 1956 by which date pandemic covid-19 was declared lockdown on 2110312020 in demanding Central Sales Tax at Rs. 3,83,51 ,2731-, without serving final show cause notice dt. 23l0312020 or without serving an opportunity of personal hearing to 3010312020 and with out dealing with the documents already submitted on 1111012019 in levying higher rate of central sales tax @14. 5o/o, as amended to section 8(2) of the CST Act, 1956 is quite arbitrary, illegal, contrary to law and consequently sel aside the ex-parte assessment order dt.
31/03/2020 without following mandatory procedure in serving the notices as prescribed under the Act, as violative of principles of nature justice, equity and fair play in not serving show cause notice dl. 2}AA2020 nor personal hearing notice posted to 3010312020 before passing the final assessment order lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in lhe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of collection of disputed central sales tax of Rs. 3,83,51 ,2731- pursuant to the ex-parte assessment order dt. 31/03i2020 passed by the 1st respondent for the assessment year 2015-16 under the CST Act, pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI TEJPRAKASH TOSHNIWAL Counsel for Respondents: SRI M. GOVIND REDDY, SPL. SC FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES The Court made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. S. RAMACHANDRA RAO ANt) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.
AMARNATH GOUD WRIT PETITION NO. 22490 OF 202O ORDER: (Per SriJustice ltl S-Ranachandro Rao) In this Writ Petition, the petitioner assails the Assessment Order No. 52023 dt. 3 I . 03. 2020 passed b)- the l" respondent under the CST Act. 1956 tbr the assessment periocl April. 20 15 to March. 20l6 2. It is the contention ol the petitioner that the l't responclent had issued a show-cause notice on 04. 06. 2019 and thereafier the petitioner had also sr. rbmitted on I I . 10. 2019 I I Forms and C I)eclaration Forms; sucldenly the l'r respondellt inibrmed or el phone tlrat the petitione r has to pay Rs. 3. 83,51,2731- lor the assessrnent 2015-16 Lrnder the CS'f ),ear Act, I 956; the petitioner then went to the oftrce of the l " respondent and came to know about the passing of the impugned Assessment Order. 3, The petitioner contends that though the said impugned order refers to flnal show-cause notice dt. 23. 03 . 2020, no such show-cause notice has beeu served on the petitioner. 1.
It also contended that no pcrsorral hcaring had been pror,'ided to the petitioner though thc sarrc had bcen sor. rght by the petitioner specilrcally in the response tiled on II. 10. 20l9 bv ir and none ol rhe documents submitted by the petirioner on I 1. 10. 20 I9 had been considered by the l't resporrderrt in the impugnecl Assessment Order. 5. The petitioner also contends titat. ,vhen the r. vhole country \\as in lockdown on account of Covid-19 pandemic and no Covernment olfices except those dealing with emergency services were working, the l'' respondent could not have passed the impugned Assessment Order on 31,03. 2020. 6. Sri M. Govind Reddy, learned Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearir-rg for the respondents does not dispute that the impugned order makes no ret-erencc to the response dt. 1 1 . 10. 20 19 subntitted bt, the petitioner or to the Il Itornrs and C Dcclalation lrorurs vuhich thc p,:titioncr had subnritted to the l'' rcspondent. 7.
He also does not dispLrtc that pclsonal hearing was not plovided to thc petitioner and final shou,-causc notice dt. 23. 03. 2020 is not served on thc petitioner though the impr-rgnecl Assessr. nent Order speaks as il' it lras been served on the petitioner. 8. [n our considered opinion, there has been violation ofprinciples of natural justice and the petitioner has suffered great prejudice thereby 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed; the impugned Assessrnent Order No. 52023 dt. 3l . 03. 2020 passed b1' the 1" respondent is set aside; the matter is rernitted back to the 1" respondent lor lresh considelationl thc l" respondent is dilected to provide a personal hearing to the pctitioner; thc petilioner l5 permitted to t. ile any additional obiections if it so cl-rooses along ri, ith supporting rr-raterial bclbrc the l '' respondent; the l'' r'espondent shall then pass a reasoned order in accordance with law and comrnunicate it to the petitioner'. No costs -l 10.
Pending miscellaneous petirions, if any, in this Writ petition shall stand closed. SD/. K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT RE STRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION FFICER To, 1 . The Commercial Tax Officer Others, Vanasthali Puram -2 Circle, Saroor Nagar Division, 5th Floor, Kakatiya Hotel, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Saroor Nagar Division, 1st Floor, Near Exhibition Grounds, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Govt. of Telangana, 1 st Floor, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Building, Nampally, Hyderabad. 4. The Principal Secretary to Revenue Department, Government of Telengana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 5 One CC to Sri Tejprakash Toshniwal Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri M. Govind Reddy, Spl. SC for Commercial Taxes (OPUC) 7. Two CD Copies IVBC \M HIGH COURT DATED: 2211212020 I0 I)Ec ? -io 2U0 * ORDER WP. No. 22490 of 2O2O ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS V- )*
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.