WP/6473/2026 of M/s.Methods Automotive Private Limited Vs The Appellate Joint Commissioner of State Tax on 2 March 2026

1. The Appellate Joint Commrssioner of State Tax, Puniagutta Division' Hyderabad.

2. TheCommercialTaxofficer,(nowtheAssistantCommissionerofStateTax), Ranigunj Circle, HYderabad

3. The Commercial Tax Officer, (now the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax M.G.Road-S.D.Road Circle)' M G.Road-S D Road Circle' Hyderabad'

4. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary' Revenue (CT) Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad'

5. The Branch Manager, HSBC Bank' Mahatma Gandhi Road' Bangalore - 560

...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 Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction declaring. ('l) the action of the 'l Respondent in passing the Appeal Order' dated 26.02.2024 Exparte, without considering the detailed grounds of appeal - filed, without providing an opportunity of being heard either to the Petitioner or to the Authorised Representative of the Petitioner and without intimating if any documentary evidence requrred to be filed by the Petitioner, and also not servrng the Original Appeal Order, daled 26.02.2024 on either on the Petitioner or on the Authorised Representative of the Petitioner, for the tax period 2009-10 to 2012-13 under the Value Added Tax Act 2005, as arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Act. not valid in the eye of law and also in violatron of Principles of Natural Justice and Rule of Law

(2) the action of the 2nd Respondent in passing the Assessment Proceedings, dated 13 1'1 2013 E:xparte, for the tax period 2009-10 lo 2012-13 under the Value Added Tax Act 2005, without provrding an opportunity to file objections and an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner, as arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Act and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Rule of Law

(3) the action of the 1st and 3'd Respondents in not serving the Appeal Order, dated 26 02 2024, though the Petitioner filed Representation, dated 12.02 2026 and the action of the 3rd Respondent in issuing Garnishee Notice, dated 12.02.2026 to the 5th Respondent Bank, as arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Act and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Rule of Law and consequently set aside the Appeal Order, dated 26.02 2024 passed Exparte by the 1St Respondent and the Assessment Order, dated 1311.2013 passed Exparte by the 2nd Respondent, as null and void l.A. NO: 1 OF 2026 Petrtion under sectron 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased be pleased to direct the 3rd Respondent to revoke the Garnishee Notice, dated 12.02.2026 lo the 5th Respondent Bank for the demand for the tax period 2009- 10 to 20,l2-1 3 under the Value Added rax Act, 2005, pending disposal of the above writ petition, as otherwise, the Petitroner will be put to severe loss and hardship.

l.A. NO: 2OF 2026 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 suspend the Operation of the Appeal Order, dated 26.02.2024 passed Exparte by the Pt Respondent and the Assessment Proceedings, dated 1 3.1 '1 .201 3 passed Exparte by the 2nd Respondent, for the tax period 2009-10 lo 2012-13 under the Value Added Tax Act, 2005, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, as otherwise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHAMMED RAFI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA' SPL. GP FOR STATE TAX The Court made the following: ORDER

tN I IIT] IIIGII ('OI JRl'T()R THI] STATE OF'-Tt]l,ANCANA AT I{YDERAIIA T) 1'tII] IIoN()t IL,\I]LE SRI JUSI'ICE P.SAi\I KOSHY ANI) -l HF. Il()\(r(rlt \lll,[. SltI.lt]STlCl'. NARSIN(; ll.\() NAllDlKONDA WP.No.6473 of 2O26 t)ato:02.0-1.2026 llctr,r crn: M,'s.Mctlroriq nutolllo(ive I'rivatc Linritcd. (iancllr i Nagirr'. I Irderabad Rcp.t.l1 its r\uthorized Signator). Mr.K:rrrrrr:rrla Vcrrkrtcsh S/o.l.atc Sri K.l'ochaiah Petitroncl And Ihc Appcllatc.loint ( ,.rnrnrissioncr of Statc'far. [)un jauuttlr I)ivisiou. Ill,tlcrabad and othcrs. Respondents OIIDFIR: , :rlir,'r thc inrltu.qned ordcr has lrccn passcd i. lhe contcntron ol lcarned counscl lirr the pctitioner that the I)ctttlotlet \lirs t)()t ar|zrrc ol'the orclcr passcd h1 thc r,,1t1tcllate .l()int l)(r !lon htL, ,\ri.lurtict, l'Srnr Ko.rhy) 'l ltc Prcscni rvlil ;rctition rrhich rvas llled on 26.01.20?6 illicr trvo vears IIcarl lVlr.l!1riraurrncd Rali. learned courrscl apptaring tirr the potitiorlcr rrrril N4r.Straroop C)orilla. lcarncd Specia[ (io'uernrnent l)lcader lbr Statc lar. appcarirrr lbr thc rcspondents and peruscd tlrc rccord

2. lire iirslaut i: (hc uri( pctition rrhich has hccrt lilcd assailing thc orclcr pr.rscd hv the Appcllarc.[()inr Comntissitrncr. tlated 2(r.02.2024 /.'.i{ .;J J-<

z Commissionsr and it is only rccently rccovery notice r.r.as issLrcd, on that they'canre to knou'about the irnpugned ordcr having bcen passed by thc Appellate Joint Cornrnissioncr- Learned counscl fbr the petitioncr subrnits that thc petitioncr had closed dorvn thcit busincss establishnrcnts and had moved out and scttlcd in Bangalore. which furthcr rvas the rcason of har.'ing not received the noticcs r.r'hich rvere issr"red by thc Appellate Joint Comnrissioner belbrc passing of the irnpugned oruler is concenrcd. Horvever, going through the entire records available on lhc file ol- thc Writ l'ctition. it appcars that tlre Asscssing authorit-"- had found the variations/otnissions and diflerences rvhich were lbund during the ) ear 2009- l0 to 20 l2-20 I 3. Attcr issuancc o[ show-cause notice and whcn thcrc was no response on lhe part of the petitioner. passcd ordcr on l3.l 1.20 ll holding an atnount of l(S. 12.66,6ttt/- is outstanding against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order. thc pctitroncr plet'errcd an appeal befbre thc Appellatc Dcputy Comnrissiouer. which rvas rciccted on 0l .05.20 I 4 at the admission stagc itscll. Aggricvcd b)'thc saurc. tho petitioncr prefcrred lurther appeal bclirrc thc Valuc Added Tax Appellate 'l'ribunal, t{1'dcrabad ("thc 'l'rih,-rnal"). and thc Tribunal lirund thc order of the Appcllatc l)eputy Commissiotier itr rejecting the appeal on lho ground of delav tt'r bc cmoucorts and appl;'ing the principles laid dorvn bv thc L i t

. /

Suprcnrc ( ourt in S.E.(iraphitcs v. State of Tclangana Il.n WS (SC) l0l9 7 19l allotrctl the appcal on 31.10.2022 attd reurattdcd the lnattcr back to tltc n l)pellate .loint (.onrnrissioner to dccide tltc sltlttc tln ntetits. -1. Alicl lhc rcurand uas lnadc. the record sllou's tltat thero have hccn threc legistcrcd notices \\'hich ivcrc issued to the petitioner on li tl.l0l.l. ]0.11.2()li ancl 16.02.202,1. All the aftrresaid notices \\'erc rcturnccl h) thc poslal departurent rvith an endorsellreni no such fintr'. lironr tlrc ir{irresaid r:ndorsernent itsclt. it clcarlr indicatcs that thc pet I I r()11cr cs[ablishrrrent \\ils not fLrnctioning liont thc sflid prerniscs In tlrc cr crrt ol' thcrc bcing an1' changc ol' location of thc cstablishmcnt or in thc tr cnl ol'cslablishnrcnt itsell getting ckrscd. duc intirration in this rcgarrl Lrught to have been furnished u'ith thc dcparlrncnt. thcrc rlrrst bc conrnrunicalion ol- the presont location ancl thc ncrv address at rrlrich tirlthcr corrcspondcncc have to bc rnadc by thc l)cpartrncnt Ihcrc securs to bc (otal lailurc in this regard on lhc part ()l'lhc pctitioncr. \nothcr aspcct whic h is clear[1' reflccted is thal it \\,as tllc appeal ol the p.rctitiorrcr itscll'rvhich rvas allorved bv thc lrihunal arrd thc mattcr rvas te tttartrl,.-d hle k to thc appellate Deputl Conrrnissione r. lherefirre. lhe pelitioncl nlro rras the appcllant belbrc the Appcllatc l)cputy (.rrrnissi,rrcr *,as n.t expectcd of registered notices t. be issucd to therr. r',rhcr lt \\'as lhcir incur,benl tluty.to hare lbllo*_up the appeal I

and taking to its logical conclusion. Inorc particularll', rvhen tlrc order of' thc Assessing Ollicer uas operating against thcrn. lt appears that the petitioner has lailed to take any rcc()ursc in tlris regard alstr and pernritted thc appeal nhich thel' had tllcd and which thcl had got remanded lionr the 'l ribunal go unattendcd. rvhich apparcntll' appcars to be delibcrate act on the part ol'the pctitioner. It is only nttrt rvhcn the appeal stands tlecided two ycars back. lr'hich thc dcpartmer r[ :rctcd upon and recoverl' noticcs have bcen issued that tht: petitioner uokc' up by fiting of thc urit petition at this.iurlcture. We do not lind an1' strong cxplanal.ion ntadc a';ailablc b1' thc petitioncr so lar as challcnge to thc irnpugncd orcler lreing uraclc at this belatcd stagc arld also rro plausiblc cxplanation is rvailahlc rvith the pelitioncr ltrr havin,e not altctrdcd to the appeal after retnand tras rna<ie by thc'l-ribunal.

5. For all tlrc albresaid rcasons. we arc tlf thc considcrcd opinion that no strong case \\as tnade out lor judicial scrutin)/ ol'tlrc irrlpugned order is rnadc out at this juncture in the \rlit Court in cxcrcrso of rvrit jurisdiction under Article 226 ol'the Clotlstitution ol'Inclia. It also gocs without say-ing that ihe petitioner even alier coming to krtorl about the irnpugned ordcr havinq bcen passcd had an altcrnativc rctncdv ol'again approachin-u thc learnccl -fribunal against thc said ortlcr- rthich thc i il w

To, pcLitir''nc-r' hutt Itot avarlcd- For this rcason' \\e arc not inclincd tcl elltcrta in tlr!' \\ l'it l)ctition. (r I'he \\'r'it I)ctrtiorl is. accordingll'. tlisrllissccl' 'lhere shall he ncr t,rtlet lt. 1,,t,''15 Nli'ccllarteous rpplications pending. il'an1'' shalI stlnd closed SD'-A. JAYASREE AS ISTANT REGIS //TRUE COPY// TION OFFICER One CC to SRI MOHAIvIMFD RAFI, Advocate [OPUGJ 2IwoCCstoSPLGPFoRSTATETAX.HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI 3 Two CD CoPies BSR BS

HIGH COURT DATED: 0210312026

ORDER

WP.No.6473 of 2026 ;, STHE S ot l: '.rO I 4 Hltfr \rilfr t

* c^ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS * TCI.rE0 €