M/s. Sri Ridhie Bakerss v. The State of Telangana
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. Sri Ridhie Bakerss v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. S,RAMACHANDRA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD WRIT PETITION NO: 21998 and 21976 OF 2020 WP. No. 21998 of 2020 Between: l\,4/s. Sri Ridhie Bakerss, Sy. No. 545, Babaguda Village, Shamjrpet I\,4andal, lVedchal-l\,4alkajgiri Dist. Represented by its Proprietor, Sri. PSNV Prasad, S/o. Sri. P, Satyanarayana ... PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Telangana, Represenled by its Principal Secretary, (Revenue), Secretariat, Hyderabad 2. The Assistant Commissioner (CT)-lll, Saroornagar Division, M J Road, Hyderabad. a The Bank Manager, Bank of Baroda, Tilak Nagar Branch, Hyderabad ...
RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate Writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of I\,4andamus, declaring the impugned order dated 2910212020 passed by the 2nd respondent for the assessment year 2017-18 (Apr to Jun' 2017) CST in AO No. 1831 1 as illegal, unjustified and contrary to the provisions of law besides being violative of principles of natural justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated jn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the notice dated. 20/1 112020 in Form VAT 206 issued by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent bank attaching the bank account of the petitioner during the pendency of the above writ petition. WRIT PETITION NO: 21976 OF 2020 Between: M/s.
Sri Ridhie Bakerss, Sy. No. 545, Babaguda Village, Shamirpet tVandal, lVedchal-lt/alkajgiri Dist. Represented by its Proprietor, Sri. PSNV Prasad, S/o. Sri. P. Satyanarayana ... PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, (Revenue), Secretariat, Hyderabad 2. The Assistant Commissioner (CT)-lll, Saroornagar Division, IV J Road, Hyderabad The Bank l\,4anager, Bank of Baroda, Tilak Nagar Branch, Hyderabad, ... RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of tlte Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of l\,4andamus, declaring the impugned order dated 2910212020 passed by the 2nd respondent for the assessment year 2016-17 CST in AO No. 18294 as illegal, unjustified and contrary to the provisions of law besides being violative of principles of natural justice.
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 stay the operation of the notice dated. 20/1 112020 in Form VAT 206 issued by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent bank attaching the bank account of the petitioner during the pendency of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner (in both WPs'): SRI B. SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent ( in both WPs'): SRI M. GOVIND REDDY, SPECIAL SC FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI . IUSTICE M. S. RAMACHANDRA RAO ANI) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD \\'rit I'e tition Nos. 2 1998 ltncl 21976 of 2020 C]ONINION ORI) ER Qer Hon'hlc ,\ri . ltr. stice lv|. S. Runtttchtudra Rao) in these Writ Petitions, the petitioner chailenges (i) A. O. No. l8294 dr. 29. 02. 2020 passed by 1.
' respondent for the period April^ 20 l6 to June, 2017 under the Central Sales Tax Act. 1956: and (ii) A. O. No. 18311 dt. 29. 02. 2020 passed by l,t respondenr for the period April, 2017 to June, 2017 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 2. As regards the period from April, 2016 to March, 2017, it is the contention of petitioner that after receiving show-cause notice clt. 07. 06. 2019 fi. om 2"'r respondent, the petitioner filed replies dt. 17. 06. 20 19, dt. 21. 06. 2019 and also dt. 03. 02. 2020 enclosing copies of C-Fornrs and E l-Forrrs; that petitioner had also requested fbr 1-rclsonal lrealing br-rt withoLrL providing anv per. sonal lrear. irrg to petitioner and r. vithout considering any of the replies subrritted by petitioner, the imptrgned assessrnent order. u,as passed ignoring suppoltiltg material. -'r As regards the Assessment Order dt. 29. 02. 2020 tbr the period April, 2017 ro June, 2017 also, the petitioner contends that it had grven responses on 17. 06. 2019 and21.
06. 2019 aparl from 03. 02. 2020 \\p 11998&219,-6 l0:0 enclosing C-Forn. rs and E 1-liorrns trnd that these were also not corrsidered by 2"'l respondent; the irnpugned Assessrnent Ordel was passed; and that personal hearing was also not provided to petitioner' by 2nd respondent for both the above tax periods. 4. Sri M. Govind Reddy, leamed Special Counsel for Corrrnercial Taxes, appearing for respondents, is unable to explain why the 2"'1 respondent had not adverted to the contents of the responses given by petitioner to the show-cause notices issued to it in the impugned Assessment Orders. 'fhe jnvite 5, whole purpose ol issuing the shorv-cause notice is to a response tiom the petitioner / assessee; and when such responses have been submitted along with supporling rnaterial, it is the duty ol 2nd respondent to consider the same. The 2"d respondent cannot ignore the same and pass the impugned Assessment Orders. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed; the impugned A. O. No.
18294 dt. 29. 02. 2020 passed by 1't respondent for the period April, 2016 to June, 2017 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and A. O. No. 183 1 1 d1. 29. 02. 2020 passed by 1" respondent for the period April,2017 to June, 2017, are both set aside; the rnatters are remitted to 2nd respondent lor fresh consideration; the 2n'r respondent is directed to provide a personal hearing to petitioner and consider the responses sLrbrnitted by petitioner retbrred to above along w,ith sLrpporting MSIi.. I & f A.. I . , up 21998&21976 202{t material; and the 2'"1 respondent shall then pass reasoned orders and corrrnunicate the same to petitioner. 7, Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed as above' No order as to costs 8. As a sequel. tr-r iscellaneous petitions pending if ar-rv in these Writ Petitions. shall stand closed. SD/. K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGI ,TRUE COPY' SECTI OFFICER To Hyderabad (Revenue) State of Telang-ana Secretarrat' 1.
The Prrncipal Secretary, -Division, lv J Road siroornagar The Assistant commissioner r"ci-iir. 2. Hvd era bad Hvderabad of Baroda' Tilak Nagar Branch' 3. iil;i;;k t\n". rqer, Bank IoPUC] cj;""tt'i;'s. i Blstiniua. , Advocate 4. -for Commercial Taxes' Advocate neio"vlb*pd"ir-5c 5. one CC to Sri M. Covino IOPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies SM HIGH COURT DATED:2211212020 1 HE s TA t COMMON ORDER J o z 0 5 JAN 2021 o WP. Nos. 21998 and 21976 ot 2020 C) t * PA T $. ALLOWING THE WPs' WITHOUT COSTS <. ,. { tGp'et )-\ 20'q )F o\ \
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.