M/S. Anthelio Business Technologies 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 DECEIVIBER 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: 22942 OF 2020 Between:
l\,4/s. Anthelio Business Technologies Private Limited, rep. by its Authorised Representative, l\,4 r. NSV Krishna Rao, Level-1 Part-A, Tower-1, Phase-2, Wave Rock, APIIC IT SEZ, Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally, Rangareddy District' Telanqana ...pETrrroNER AND Commercial Tax Officer, lVadhapur-lll Circle, Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad.
State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (CTll) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad ...RESpoNDENrs 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 a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the impugned order of the 1st Respondent passed in AO No.44751 dated 291312020 for the assessment year 2015-16 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as being illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to re-assess the Petitioner for the year 2015-16, after giving proper show cause notice in accordance with Rule 64 of the Telangana VAT Rules, 2005 and an opportunity to file ob.
jections and a personal hearing and thereafter pass assessment order in accordance with 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 recovery of the disputed demand of Rs.3,08,40,047/- pursuant to the impugned order of the 1st Respondent daled 29.3.2020 for the assessment year 2015-16 under the CST Act, 1956, pending disposal of the Writ Petition as otherwise the Petitroner will be put to severe loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. DWARAKANATH Counsel for Respondents: SRI M. GOVIND REDDY, SPL.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD WRIT PETrTroN NO.22942 0F 2020 ORDER:
(Per Sri Justice M.S-Ratnachandra Rao) In this Writ Petition, the petitioner assails the Assessment Order A.O.No.4475 1 dr.29.03.2020 passed by the 1't respondent for the assessment year 20 I 5- 1 6 under the CST Act, 1956.
2. it is the contention of the petitioner that a demand notice dt.20.10.2020 was issued by the l" respondent to the petitioner dernanding payment of tax of Rs.3,08,40,047l- for the year 2015-16 under the CST Act, 1956; that the petitioner then submitted a reply on 25.10.2020 asking the I'r respondent to indicate on u,hat basis sr-rcl.r demand is being made since it is SEZ Unit; that the 1't respondent then issued a gamishee notice dt.21.11.2020 to the petitioner''s banker attaching the petitioner's bank account for the said amount; and the petitioner then approached the 1't respondent and came to know about the impugned Assessment Order dt.29.03.2020.
3.
The petitioner contends that though the impugned Assessment Order refers to the issuance of a show-cause notice to the petitioner as lvcll as reminder notice dt.16.11.2019 and final notice dt.06.03.2020. none of these notices were served on the petitioner and no personal hearing rvas also provided to the petitioner 4.
Sri M.Govind Reddy, learned Special Counsel fbr Commercial Taxes appearing for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the
impugned Assessment Order was passed by the 1" responder.rt without serving any pre-assessment show-cause notice or other notices on the petitioner and no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner. 5.
We are satisfied that there has been violation of principles of natural justice which has caused grave prejudice to the petitioner. 6.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed; the impugned Assessment Order A.O.No.44751 dt.29.03.2020 passed by the l" respondent is set aside; the matter is remitted back to the 1'r respondent for lresh consideration; the l'1 respondent is directed to serve a showcause notice on the petitioner indicating the tumover proposed to be taxed ar-rd the tax proposed to be levied thereon in atccordance rvith Rule 64(1)(b) of the TVAT Rules, 2005; the petitioner is granted six (6) weeks time fi'om the date of receipt of the said notice to file objections thereto along with supporting material; a personal hearing shall be afforded to the petitioner by the 1't respondent; and then a reasoned order shall be passed by the 1't respondent in accordance with law and communicated to the petitioner. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
SD/.N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER \ 'o"1 . ,n" Commercial Tax Officer' N/ladhapur-lll Circle' Hyderabad Rural Division' Hvderabad e -,.6e Principal Secretary' Revenue (CT-ll) Department' State of Telangana f . ef{gg E$;fl^":;sn:'
az'Lt: r",i:5t?J H]n m u'"' r ax e s ( o P U c ) MBC , ,"r
HIGH COURT DATED: 301'1212020 TA s e tl ( oo 0 7 JAil 2021 * () l).1 rt
ORDER
WP.No.22942 of 2020 ALLOWING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ 1,/ I