Telangana High Court
WP/22898/2020 of M/s. Dinesh Kumar Daliya and Company Vs Commercial Tax Officer on 30 December 2020
THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY , THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD Between: It4/s. Dinesh Kumar Daliya and Company, rep. by
WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEIVBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAOAND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
WRIT PETITION NO: 22898 OF 2020
Between:
It4/s. Dinesh Kumar Daliya and Company, rep. by its Proprietor, Ir/r. DineshKumar Daliya, 7-3-218, Goushala Road, Nizamabad-so3 001Kumar Daliya, 7-3-218, Goushala Road, Nizamabad-so3 001
...PETTTTONER(S)
AND
1Commercial Tax Officer, Bodhan Circle, Nizamabad Division, Nizamabad.
2State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (CT-ll) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabadll) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad .,.RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleasedto issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or directionquashing the impugned order of the 1st Respondent passed in AO No.38227, datedcircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleasedto issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or directionquashing the impugned order of the 1st Respondent passed in AO No.38227, dated161312020, communicaled to the Petitioner on 711212020 for the assessment year2015-16 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as illegal, arbitrary, unjustified andin violation of principles of natural justice.in violation of principles of natural justice.
lA NO: 1 OF 2020
Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grantstay of recovery of the disputed tax of Rs.12,63,1771-, pursuant to the impugnedorder of the Respondent dated 16.3.2020 for the assessment year 2015-16 underthe CST Act, 1956, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, as otherurse the Petitionerwill be put to severe loss and hardship Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. S DWARAKANATH
Counsel for the Respondents: SRl. P. GOVIND REDDY, SPECIAL COUNSEL
FOR CT
The Gourt made the folloWing:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAOAND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
WRIT PETITION NO.22898 OF 2()2()
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
(P!t-StiJustice \l S l?anachandnt Rao)
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner assails the Assessrnent Order.A.O.No.38227 dt.16.03,2020 passed by the I't respondent under the CSTAct, 1956 for the period April, 2015 to March, 2016.
2. The petitioner contends that a show-cause notice d1.04.09.2019was issued to it to its registered e-mail by the 1't respondent proposing tolevy tax on certain inter-State sales tumover.
3, The petitioner states that it gave a response electronicallydisputing the turnover proposed to be taxed and requesting for a personalhearing and indicating that it had not scored any such turnover.
4, The petitioner also states that it appeared lor personal hearingbelbre the 1't respondent on i3.03.2020 and reiterated its contentionsthat tl-rc turnover rvhich is proposed to be taxed does not relate to it.
5. According to the petitioner, the 1" respondent passed theimpugned order confirming the liability mentioned in the show-causenotice without considering the reply given or submissions made at thetime of personal hearing.
6. Sri M.Govind Reddy, learned Special Counsel for CommercialTaxes appearing for the respondents does not dispute that the l,lrespondent had not considered the response given by the petirioner \
electronically or the contentions raised by the petitioner during thepersonal hearing.personal hearing.
7ln these circuntstancesl we ar.c of the opinion that the irnpugnedorder is vitiated.order is vitiated.
8. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed; the intpugnedAssessment Order A.O.No38227 dt.16.03.2020 passed by the l.rrespondent is set aside; the matter is re,ritted back to the 1,1 respondentfor fresh consideration; the petitioner is permitted to file objections tothe show-cause notice dt.04.09.2019 with supporting material withi, six(6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; a personalhearing shail be afforded to the petitioner by the l.trespondent; and thena leasoned orde. shall be passed by the 1't respondent in accordance withlaw and comrnunicated to the petitioner. No costs.
9, Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in rhis Wr.it petition shallstand c lose d SD/.B.SATYAVTHIASSISTANT REGIR
,TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. Commercial Tax Officer, Bodhan Circle, Nizamabad Division, Nizamabad.
2. The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (CT-ll) Department, State ofTelangana, Secretariat, HyderabadTelangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad
3. One CC to Sri. S. Dwarakanath, Advocate IOPUC]
IOPUC]4. One CC to Sri. lV. Govind Reddy, Spl. SC for CT (OPUC)4. One CC to Sri. lV. Govind Reddy, Spl. SC for CT (OPUC)
5. Two CD Copies.
PIV
(,
HIGH COURT
DATED:3011212020
ORDERWP.No.22898 of 2020
Allowing the WPWithout costs.
\ll)
1Hes14(oo0 [6 ][JAN ][2021]c)**p,a.T\t