M/S. Dharmaja Industries v. Commercial Tax Officer And Another
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 (Speciat Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER 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:229s1 oF 2020 Betwee n:
It,4/s. Dharmaja lndustries, B"l^. !y_Ltr proprietrix, Ms. Uma Rani Borra, 6411, ClE, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad - 500 037.
AND .,.PETITIONER
1. Commercial Tax Officer, Gandhinagar Circle, Secunderabad. 2 S-lqte.of relangana, Fep uy its priricipar Secretary to Government, Revenue (CT-ll) Department, Secretiriat. 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 a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction - (a) setting aside the impugned order of the Respondent bearing Ao No.
4g470 daled 301312020 uploaded on 3ol3t2o2o for the assessment year 2o1s-16 under the central sales Tax Act, 1g56 as passed in the name of a wrong entity, in violation of principles of natural justice and on non-existent turnover (b) as being wrongfully enforced by demand notice dated 2g/1ol2o2o without service of an authenticated assessment order as per Rule 64 of the Telangana VAT Rules,2005, and (c) consequently direct the 'l st Respondent to re-frame the assessment order after considering the objections and documentary evidence to be filed by the Petitioner and granttng an opportunity of personal hearing lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of lhe petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings, pursuant to the impugned order of the 1st Respondent dated 30/3/2020 and demand notice dated 29l1O|2O2O for the assessment year 2015-16 under the CST Act, 1956, pending disposal of the Writ Petition as otherwise the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KARTHIK RAMANA pUTTAMREDDy Counsel for Respondent No 1: SRI M. GOVIND REDDY, SPL.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD wRIT PDTITION NO 229stoF 2020 . ^ ORDER:
rrer srr Justice M_S.Rahachahdra Rao) In this Writ petition, the petitioner assails the Assessment Order A.O.No.48470 dt.30.03.2()20 passed by the I'r respondent under the CST Act, 1956 for the period 2Ol5_16.
2.
According to the petitioner, the assessee is N4ls. Dharmaja Indusrries registered under the CST Act, 1956, but the impugned Assessment order was passed in the name of its proprietrix Unra Rani Borra; and that the Assessment Order having been passed against a wrong entity, is vitiated.
3.
It is further contended that a demand notice dt.29. l0 .2020 was issued to the petitioner by the I,trespondent demanding payment of tax of Rs.29,62,321l_ for the year 2015_l6under the CST Act and when the petitioner enquired about the same with the l $ respondent, he was informed about the impugned Assessment Order.
4. It is further contended that though the impugned Assessrnent Order refers to a show_cause notice, reminder notice dt. I9. I I .201 9 and final potice dt.O6.O3.2O2O, but none of these notices were served on the petitionlr and no personar hearing was also afforded to the petitioner and this has caused serious prejudice to lhe petitioner. 5.
Sri M.Covind Reddy, learned Special Counsel lbr Cornmercial Taxes appearing for the respondents does not dispute that the assessee is
not ulna Rani Borra, that she is only the Proprietrix of the petitioner M/s. Dharmaja Industries and the Assessment order was passed by the 1,, respondent against a wrong entity. He also does not dispute that no pre-assessment show-cause notice or other notices were served on the petitioner and no personal hearing was also afforded to the petitioner. 6.Inviewofthesecircumstances,weareoftheopinionthatthe impugned order is vitiated and grave prejudice has been caused to the petitioner on account of violation of principles of natural justice by the 1'r respondent.
1.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed; the impugned Assessrnent order A.o.N o.48470 d1.30.03.2020 passed by the I't respondent is set aside; the matter is remitted back to the l" respondent for fresh consideration; the 1'1 respondent shall issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner indicating the turnover proposed to be taxed and the tax proposed to be levied thereon in accordance with Rule 64(l)(b) of the TVAT Rules, 2005; the petitioner is granted six (6) weeks time from the date of receipt of the said show-cause notice to file objections thereto along with supporting material; a personal hearing shall be afforded to the petitioner by the l't respondent; and then a reasoned order shall be passed by the l" respondent in accordance rvith larv and communicated to the petitioner. No costs.
J 8.
Pcnding miscellaneous Petitions' if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
^,.:3+iN+"*t'it$'#H ,rRUE coPY// tlr/ SECTION OFFICER \ To, 1 . The Commercial Tax Officer' GandhinSgar Circla-Secunderabad ? rhe Princioal Secretary tliTi;i#;;
(CT-ll) Department' state ot ' +;ir;;;;JSecretariat, Hvderabad'
3 Two ics to cp to, co*rlElli2,Tii*xes Hign Courl for the State of Telansana "nEvenue , t?u"'J" to sri Karthik Ramana Puttam-re-dgv Advocate toPUCl
5. one cc to Sri rv. cou,ni'n;i;;, s;j. 6c # comm"rc,at f3xs5 (oPUC)
6. Two CD CoPies BC{ L, N/
HIGH COURT DATED: 3011212020 ';'A s r€ oo 0 7 JAil 2021 a .L * *
ORDER
WP.No.22951 of 2020 ALLOWING OF THE WRIT PETITION AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION, WITHOUT COSTS b