WP/22837/2020 of Nakasa Crop Science Private Limited Vs Commercial Tax Officer on 30 December 2020

ORDER:

(Per Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao)

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner assails the Assessment OrderA.O.No.49801 d1.30.03.2020 passed by the 1't respondent for the periodApril, 2015 to March, 2016 under the provisions of the CST Act, 1956and the consequential demand order issued to the petitioner by the l'trespondent.

2. According to the petitioner, a show-cause notice dt.04.06.2019rvas issued to the petitioner by the 1't respondent for the above period;and the petitioner filed a reply thereon cn 04.03.2020 electronicallygiving details of C Forms pertaining to the inter-State sales effected forthe period 2015-16.

3. It is contended that subsequently, the l" respondenr sent a finalnotice dt.06.03.2020 requiring the petitioner to appear for personalhearing on 16.03.2020; that the petitioner appeared before the I'trespondent on 16.03.2020 along with C Forms available with it andinvoices and informed the 1't respondent that it is still in the process ofobtaining remaining C Forms which had been lost in a fire accidentwhich had occured in its premises on 13.11.2016, and sought for time.According to the petitioner, the 1" respondent orally informed thepetitioner to submit all documents at one time. The petitioner thereforefiled a written request on 16.03.2020 seeking 10 more days'time forcollecting and submitting the information.

)

4, The petitioner contends that in the mean time, on account ofoutbreak of Covid-19 pandemic and imposition of lockdown by the Stateand Central Governments on22.03.2020, the petitioner ciosed its officeand could not submit relevant documents to the 1't respondent.

5. It is contended that the 1't respondent [proceeded ]to [pass ]theimpugned order during the lockdown period on 30.03.2020 confirmingthe 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 petitionerto file documents, the l" respondent ought not to have ignored the [same]and proceeded to pass the impugned order that, too during the lockdownimposed by the State and Central Governments, which started on22.03.2020.

7, Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that even thereply 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 Formsand relevant documents such as invoices and waybills from therespective 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'trespondent refused to receive the same.

10. Sri M.Govind Reddy, learned Special Counsel for CommercialTaxes appearing for the respondents does not dispute that the impugnedorder was passed during the lockdown imposed by the Union and StateGovemments on account of Covid- 19 pandemic. He also does notdispute that the petitioner was not served reminder notice dt.16.11.2019and no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner or that the CForms filed by the petitioner on 04.03.2020 were not considered by the1't respondent.

11. In view of the above circumstances, we are satisfied that there isviolation of principles of natural justice and the petitioner has sufferedserious prejudice.

12. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed; the impugnedAssessment Order A.O.No.49801 dt.30.03.2020 passed by the l,lrespondent against the petitioner for the period April, 2015 to March,2016 under the CST Act, 1956, and the consequential demand orderissued to the petitioner by the 1't respondent are set aside; the matter isremitted back to the 1't respondent for fresh consideration; the petitioneris granted six (6) weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder to file an additional reply/objections with supporting material suchas C Forms, invoices, waybills, etc., in support of its claim forexemption of branch transfers and exempted sales, etc.; a personalhearing 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.VENKAIAHASSISTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY'SECTION OFFICER

To,1. The Commercial Tax Officer, Hydernag^ar--3 Circle, Sth Floor, South Wing,Gaganvihar, Nampally, Hvdera6ad- 5O-O 0Ol1. The Commercial Tax Officer, Hydernag^ar--3 Circle, Sth Floor, South Wing,Gaganvihar, Nampally, Hvdera6ad- 5O-O 0Ol2. The Commissioner of Staie Tax, Commercial Tax Department, State ofTelangana, HyderabadThe Commissioner of Staie Tax, Commercial Tax Department, State ofTelangana, Hyderabad

3. The P^rincipa_l Secretary (Revenue.), State of Telangana, Nampally, Hyderabad4. One CC to Sri [y. ]Srednivasa Reddy, AdvocateiOFUCi [--rIrr'err'' ]['| ]['|'vvruv(]5. 9,rLe cc to sri M. Govind Reddy, sileciar counder for iommerciar raxesloPUCl4. One CC to Sri [y. ]Srednivasa Reddy, AdvocateiOFUCi [--rIrr'err'' ]['| ]['|'vvruv(]5. 9,rLe cc to sri M. Govind Reddy, sileciar counder for iommerciar raxesloPUCl6. Two ccs to GP for commercial rax, High court for the state of rerangana atHyderabad. [OUTIHyderabad. [OUTI7. Two CD CopiesCHR \(\e----\(\e----\

-\

HIGH COURT

DATED:3011212020

ORDERW.P.No.22837 of 2020

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS

<-qrl1cp?t[eA]lFoh \ot\-"=t

t;rj.1tlr.sTAr€(q)ao0 B [J!,il ][2021]** oF.5