Telangana High Court
WP/22961/2020 of M/s. V. Kiran Industries Vs Commercial Tax Officer-III on 30 December 2020
THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY , THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEIVBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTCE M.S.RAMAGHANDRA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD (b)quash the garnishee notice under Section 29 of the Telangana VAT Act,
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEIVBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTCE M.S.RAMAGHANDRA RAOANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
WRIT PET|T|ON NO: 22961 OF 2020
Between:
[,4/s. V. Kiran lndustries, Rep. by its Proprietor, Iti]r. Vadnala Ravi, 6-2i-24i213,Null, Shradhanand Gunj, Nizamabad-503 001Null, Shradhanand Gunj, Nizamabad-503 001
.,.PETITIONER
AND
1. Commercial Tax Officer-ll, Nizamabad
2 S_!{e of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue(CT-ll) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad(CT-ll) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad
3. The Bank lVanager, Axis Bank, Hyderabad Road, Nizamabad.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Artjcle 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toissue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction - (a)quashing the impugned assessment order in AO No.34145, dated 23l3t2O2Opassed by the ['1st ]Respondent in the name of Vadnala Ravi, the proprietor, instead ofpassing it in the name of the Petitioner M/s V. Kiran lndustries, Nizamabad as illegal,arbitrary in violation of principles of natural justice, in violation of Rule 64 of theTelangana VAT Rules for the assessment year 2015-16 under the Central Sales TaxAct, ['1956. ]and (b)quash the garnishee notice under Section 29 of the Telangana VAT Act, dated2511112020 issued by 1st Respondent to the 3rd Respondent as illegal, arbitrary andcontrary to the assessment order itself.2511112020 issued by 1st Respondent to the 3rd Respondent as illegal, arbitrary andcontrary to the assessment order itself.
lA NO: ['f ]OF 2020
Petjtion under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in theaffidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pieased to grantsuspension of the garnishee notice, dated 25.1 1 .2020 issued by the 1st Respondentto the 3rd Respondent, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, as otherwise thePetitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship, Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl.P. KARTHIK RAMANA
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: SRl. M. GOVIND REDDY, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR CT
--Counsel for the Respondent No. 3:
The Court made the following:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUDWRIT PETITION NO.22961 OF 2O2O
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:
(Per Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao)
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner assails the Assessment OrderA.O.No.34l45 dr.23.03.2020 passed by the l" respondent lbr the period2015-16 under the CST Act. 1956.
2. The petitioner is a Proprietary concern which is registered as aVAT dealer on the rolls of the 1'' respondent under TVA'I'Act,2005"However a shorv-cause notice was issued to the petitioner's Proprietoron 07.06.2019 by the l't respondent, that too by e-mail, which is not aproper mode of service of notice nnder Rule 64 of the TVAT Rules.
3. According tc the petitioner, it filed online response on 16.03.2020submitting C Forms, but thereafter the petitioner did not hear anythingfrom the 1't respondent; surprisingly, the petitioner's banker, i.e., the 3'drespondent was served a notice under Section 29 of the TVAT Act, 2005lor recovery of a sum of Rs.32,07,468/- on 25.11.2020: rhat thepetitioner then verified with the 1" respondent and was informed that thedemand pertains to the impugned Assessment Order dt.23 .03 .2020, 4, Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitionerapplied for the said order, but the 1't respondent claimed that the orderhad been dispatchecl to the petitioner on 10.06.2020 itsell but it was-hever served on the petitioner.
5. The petitioner contends that the inpugned older is passed in thename of its Proprietor, while the business entity which should have beenassessed is the petitioner by name Mis. V. Kiran Industlies, Nizarnabad,and that the returns had also been filed in the said name; and therefore,the Assessment Order could not have been passed in the natne of anincorect taxable entity, according to the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 1't respondenthas not considered the C Forms submitted by the [petitioner ]on16.03.2020; and though the order refers to a personal hearing in whichthe petitioner is alleged to have been participated on 16.03.2020. thepetitioner had not parlicipated in the personal hearing because thc datc ofpersonal hearing was not comrnunicated to it.
1. The petitioner contends that the 1't respondent did not [care ][to ][give]credit to the tax paid by the petitioner and the [issuance ]of [garnisl.ree]notice by the 1'r respondent without even serving [the ][Assesstnent Order]cannot be sustained
8. Sri M.Govind Reddy, learned Special Counsel for [Commercial]Taxes appearing for the respondents admits that [the ][dealer ][in ][question]who is to be assessed is the [petitioner and ][not ][the ][Proprietor ][of ][the]petitioner, and that the impugned order has been [passed ][against ][an]incorect taxable entity. He also could not [explain ][why ][tl.re ][reply]dt.16.03.2020 filed by the petitioner along [with C ][Fonns was also ][not]considered by the l'1 respondent. He did not [deny ][that ][personal ][hearing]was also not provided to the petitioner.
l
\\
g. On account [of ][these ][circumstances, ][we ][are ][satisfied ][that ][the]impugned [order ][is ][vitiated ][and cannot be sustained']
10. Accordingly, [the ][Writ ][Petition ][is ][allowed; ][the ][impugned]Assessment Order [A'O.No.34145 ][dt'23'03'2020 passed ][by ][the ][1't]respondent and [also ][the ][garnishee ][notice ][dt'25'11'2020 ][issued ][by the ][1'l]respondent [to ][the ][3'd ][respondent ][are ][both ][set aside; ][the matter ][is remitted]back to the [1" ][respondent ][for ][fresh consideration; ][the ][itt ][respondent ][is]directed to serve [a ][show-cause ][notice ][on the ][petitioner indicating ][the]tumover proposed [to ][be taxed and the ][tax ][proposed ][to ][be ][levied ][thereon]in accordance with [Rule ][64(1Xb) ][of ][the ][TVAT ][Rules' 2005; ][the]is [permitted ][to ][file ][objections thereto ][within six ][(6) ][weeks]petitioner from the date [of ][receipt ][of ][the ][said ][show-cause ][notice ][aiong with]supporting material; [a ][personal hearing shall ][be afforCed ][to ][the ][petitioner]by the 1't respondent; [and ][then ][a ][reasoned ][order shall ][be ][passed ][by the ][1't]in accordance [with ][law ][and ][communicated ][to ][the petitioner']respondent No costs"
11. Pending miscellaneous [petitions, ][if ][any, in ][this ][Writ ][Petition ][shall]
stand closed.
AVASD/.B.SATYARASSISTANT [REG]//TRUE [COPY//]SECTION [OFFICER]
To,s a e .I uTt*I6*t*uq**u,t*.s",tffir*-en PM v U
HIGH COURTDATED:3011212020
ORDERWP.No.22961 ot [2020]
Allowing the WPWithout costs.
x
1HesTAo,J0 [6 ][JAN ][2021]a!** o.:.\: