Surya Prakash Bharadia v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
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. Surya Prakash Bharadia v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. Read the judgment and case details...
Judgment text
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) IVONDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. S. RAMACHANDRA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD WRIT PETITIO N NO: 22756 OF 2020 Between: Surya Prakash Bharadia, Proprietor of [r//s. Dhaneshwari lndustries, Plot No 34 and'35, Apparen Park, Gundlapochampally, Hyderabad-500036. ... pETlTloNER AND 1. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Fatehnagar Circle, Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad. 2. The Branch l\,4anager, Canara Bank, I Floor, Doshi Chambers' 3-6'327 and 328, Bashirbagh, Hyderabad - 500 029. (CT) 3. The Statd oi Ti:langana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...
RES'ONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue Writ of lr,4andamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the 1st respondent in passing the Exparte Assessment Proceedings, daled 27 to3t2o2o for the tax period 2015-16 under the central Sales Tax Act 1956, copy downloaded from the c. T. Department website , without granting an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner, and not even serving any Notice and the Assessment Procee-dings, levied tax 14$% wrongly on the interstate sales of Air distribution @ product, instead of @. 2. k covered by 'c' Forms and passing Proceedings in a lock of Surya Prakash Bharadia, down period, more in the name Proprietor [articularly Garnishee instead of Proprietary concern lrrlis.
Dhaneshwari lndustries, and issuing a copy of the Notice, dated 1111112020 to the 2nd respondent bank, without serving same and copy of Assessment Proceedings, daled 2710312020 on the Petitioner, as arbitrary, contrary to law, barred by limitation for the tax period April, 2015 to without Februaiy 20. 16, the same is in violation of principles of natural . iustice, the jurisdiction and consequently set aside the Exparte Assessment Proceedings of 1 iespondent dated 27103t2020 and Garnishee Notice, dated 1111112020, as not valid in the eye of law.
lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 grant stay of all further proceedings, in pursuance of the Exparte Assessment Proceedings, dated 27103t2020 of the respondent, for the tax period 2015-16, under the central Sales Tax Act 1956, including the Garnishee Notice, dated 1111112020 issued by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent bank, pending disposal of the above writ Petition, as otherwise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M. GOVIND REDDY' SPECIAL SC FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES The Court at the stage of admission made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. S. RAMACHANDRA RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD WRIT PETITION NO. 22756 OF 2 020 ORDER (Pet *i Justice trl. S.
llamachandra llao) In this Writ Petition, the petitioner assails the Assessment Order A. O. No. 3 7 1 69 dt. 27 . 03 . 2020 passed by the 1't respondenr under the CST Act for the tax period April, 2015 to March, 2016. 2. The petitioner states that an e-mail was received from his banker, the 2nd respondent, on 11. 11. 2020 enclosing the notice of gamishee dt. 1l. 11. 2020 demanding balance arrears of tax of Rs. 19,92,0431-: that the petitioner then requested the 1't respondent to provide the same, but the I't respondent asked the petitioner to download it from the Commercial Tax Depaftment Portal. The petitioner states that he then downloaded it and then tlled the Writ Petition. 3. According to the petitioner, the impugned order states that a show-cause notice was issued to him, that he did not file objections and did not avail personal hearing and a reminder notice dt. 18. 11. 2019 and final notice dt. 06. 03 . 2020 were also issued to him.
But the petitioner contends that it has not received any ofthese notices and no personal hearing was provided to it and there has been violation of principles of natural Justlce. 4. It is further contended that the proceedings ofthe l,,respondent is barred by limitation for ', the tax period April, 2015 to February,2016 as per Sub-Rule 5A ofRule 14,A. ofthe CST (Telangana) Rules, 1957. 5. Sli M. Govind Reddy, learned Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for the respondents does not dispute that the in. rpugned Assessment Order was passed without selving any show-cause notice or other notices on the petitioner and personal healing was also not provided to the petitioner. 6. It is thus clear that there has been violation of principles ofnatural justice which has caused prejudice to the petitioner. 7. Also, the impugned order appears to ltave been passed in the middle of the lockdown imposed by the Union Govemment and State Govemment from 24. 03.
2020 on account of Covid-19 pandemic when all Govemment offices, except those dealing with emergency services, were closed. 8. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed; the impugned Assessment Order No. 37169 dt. 27. 03. 2020 passed by the l't respondent as well as the gamishee notice dt. 1 | . ll. 2O2O issued by the 1'1 respondent are set aside; the matter is remitted to the 1'1 respondent lor' fi. esh consideration; the l" respondent shall se|ve a show-cause notice on the petitioner indicating the tumover proposed to be taxed and also the taxproposedtobeleviedthereoninaccordanccv",ithRule64oftlre TSVATRules,2005;thepetitionerisgrantedsix(6)weekstimefrom with the date of receipt of such notice to file objections thereto along supporling material; a personal hearing shall be given to the petitioner by the 1" respondent; and then a reasoned order shall be passed by the 1't I . , respondent in accordance with law and communicated to the petitioner. No costs.
9, Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. SDIK. SAILESHI AsslsrANr I rygirran //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER \ To, Circle' Hyderabad Rural Officei' Fatehnagar 1. The Deputy Commercial Tax Bank' I Floor, Doshi chambers' 3'6-327 and 328' , ? ^". ir%;lilii:X:#; canara -' eiirrirOagh, Hvdeiabad - 500 029' of Telangana' n-e'enu" tCf l Department' State 3. The Principal Secretary, " reranoind Secretariat, Hvderabad Advocate. [oPUC] + o7E'ic'i" 5ri sh"rli,"t6ni Basha' -couini}'eJov-, special SC for commercial raxes' ;. 6;; d6 i; s;i rrl I Advocate IOPUCI I 6. Two CD CoPies I SM I I I HIGH COURT DATEDi28l1212020 1 HE s 14 ( ORDER 05 JAil 2o2t ? WP. No. 22756 ol 2020 * * I cti iL... ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS ,V\{ 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.