Nakasa Crop Science Private Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEIVBER 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_: 22817 9F 2020 Between:
:
Nakasa Crop Science Private Limlted, (represented by lDA, Prasanthi Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad- 500072. its Director), Plot No.20, ...PETITIONER AND
1. Commercial Tax Officer, Hydernagar-3 Circle, Sth Floor, South Wing, Gaganvihar, Nampally, Hyderabad- 500 001.
2. Commissioner of State Tax, Commercial Tax Department, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.
3. State of Telangana, (Represented by its Principal Secretary (Revenue), Nampallv' Hvderabad ...RES'.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 an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus and declare the impugned order d1.30.03.2020 passed by the'1 st respondent as being illegal, violative of principles of natural justice, and without jurisdiction and being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) and 265 of Constitution of lndia. 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 on the operation of the impugned order and recovery of tax confirmed vide the impugned Assessment Order dt.30.3.2020 and consequential demand order dt. Nil issued by the 1st Respondent.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. Y. SREENIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M. GOVIND REDDY, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following: ORDER
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M,S.RAMACHANDRA RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD WRIT PETITION NO.22 837 0F 2020 ORDER:
(Per Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao) In this Writ Petition, the petitioner assails the Assessment Order A.O.No.49801 d1.30.03.2020 passed by the 1't respondent for the period April, 2015 to March, 2016 under the provisions of the CST Act, 1956 and the consequential demand order issued to the petitioner by the l't respondent.
2.
According to the petitioner, a show-cause notice dt.04.06.2019 rvas issued to the petitioner by the 1't respondent for the above period; and the petitioner filed a reply thereon cn 04.03.2020 electronically giving details of C Forms pertaining to the inter-State sales effected for the period 2015-16.
3.
It is contended that subsequently, the l" respondenr sent a final notice dt.06.03.2020 requiring the petitioner to appear for personal hearing on 16.03.2020; that the petitioner appeared before the I't respondent on 16.03.2020 along with C Forms available with it and invoices and informed the 1't respondent that it is still in the process of obtaining remaining C Forms which had been lost in a fire accident which had occured in its premises on 13.11.2016, and sought for time. According to the petitioner, the 1" respondent orally informed the petitioner to submit all documents at one time. The petitioner therefore filed a written request on 16.03.2020 seeking 10 more days'time for collecting and submitting the information.
) 4, The petitioner contends that in the mean time, on account of outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic and imposition of lockdown by the State and Central Governments on22.03.2020, the petitioner ciosed its office and could not submit relevant documents to the 1't respondent.
5. It is contended that the 1't respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order during the lockdown period on 30.03.2020 confirming the demand of CST calculated at the rate of 14.5o/o instead of 5% on the fertilizers and nil rate oforganic manure 6.
The petitioner contends that having granted time to the petitioner to file documents, the l" respondent ought not to have ignored the same and proceeded to pass the impugned order that, too during the lockdown imposed by the State and Central Governments, which started on 22.03.2020.
7, Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that even the reply dt.04.03.2020 enclosing the C Forms filed by the petitioner was not taken into consideration by the l't respondent and no personal hearing was also afforded to the petitioner.
8.
It is further contended that though the impugned order refers to reminder notice dt.16.11.2019 and final notice dt.06.03.2020, the reminder notice dt. I 6. 1 1 .2019 was not received by the petitioner. 9.
According to the petitioner, it obtained all the remaining C Forms and relevant documents such as invoices and waybills from the respective State Tax Authorities and other States and approached the l" respondent for submission of the original C Forms in proof of the claim
of exemptions for branch transfers and exempted sales, but the 1't respondent refused to receive the same.
10. Sri M.Govind Reddy, learned Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for the respondents does not dispute that the impugned order was passed during the lockdown imposed by the Union and State Govemments on account of Covid- 19 pandemic. He also does not dispute that the petitioner was not served reminder notice dt.16.11.2019 and no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner or that the C Forms filed by the petitioner on 04.03.2020 were not considered by the 1't respondent.
11. In view of the above circumstances, we are satisfied that there is violation of principles of natural justice and the petitioner has suffered serious prejudice.
12. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed; the impugned Assessment Order A.O.No.49801 dt.30.03.2020 passed by the l,l respondent against the petitioner for the period April, 2015 to March, 2016 under the CST Act, 1956, and the consequential demand order issued to the petitioner by the 1't respondent are set aside; the matter is remitted back to the 1't respondent for fresh consideration; the petitioner is granted six (6) weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to file an additional reply/objections with supporting material such as C Forms, invoices, waybills, etc., in support of its claim for exemption of branch transfers and exempted sales, etc.; a personal hearing shall be afforded to the petitioner by the I'r respondent; and then
a reasoned order shall be passed by the l't respondent in accordance with law and cornmunicated to the petitiollet'. No costs.
13. Pending miscellaneous petitions, il any, in tl.ris Writ Petition shall stand closed.
SDi-K.VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'
SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The Commercial Tax Officer, Hydernag^ar--3 Circle, Sth Floor, South Wing, Gaganvihar, Nampally, Hvdera6ad- 5O-O 0Ol
2. The Commissioner of Staie Tax, Commercial Tax Department, State of Telangana, Hyderabad
3. The P^rincipa_l Secretary (Revenue.), State of Telangana, Nampally, Hyderabad
4. One CC to Sri y. Srednivasa Reddy, AdvocateiOFUCi --rIrr'err'' '| '|'vvruv(
5. 9,rLe cc to sri M. Govind Reddy, sileciar counder for iommerciar raxes loPUCl
6. Two ccs to GP for commercial rax, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI
7. Two CD Copies CHR \ (\e--- -\
HIGH COURT DATED:3011212020 t;rj.
TAr€ s r.
tl q ( ) o a 0 B J!,il 2021 * .5 * oF
ORDER
W.P.No.22837 of 2020 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS <-qrl cp?teA lFoh \ot\-"=t