WP/23289/2021 of M/s.Plan-A Designtec Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Joint Commissioner of State Tax on 24 February 2026

1. The Joint commissioner of state Tax, Abids Division, Hyderabad.

2. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, (Earlier Commercial Tax Officer) Barkatpura Circle, Hyderabad.

3. The chief commissioner of state Tax, (Earlier the commissioner of Commercial Taxes), C.T.Complex, Nampalfi, Hyderabad.

4. The state dl:lllgq!?,Fep.by.its principar Secretary, Revenue (cr-il) Department, Telangana Seiretdriat, Hydeiabad. -' ---'' ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the Hign'court may ue pleased to issue Wirt of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the 1st respondent'in passing the Suo Moto Revision Proceedings, dated 16.01 .2021 passed undei sectiSn g2(2) of the Telangana VAT Act, 2005, in revising the Audit Assessment proceedings passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 18.05.201 7 , tor the tax period 2013-1+ t6 zbt s-t o under the Telangana Value Added Tax Act 2005, as arbitrary, contrary to law, bias, against weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and more particularly, when W.P.No.23O of 2019 filed by the Petitioner on the file of the Honble Court, is pending adjudication, passing Revision Proceedings is not valid in the eye of law and consequently set aside the Revision proceedi-ngs of the 1st respondent, dated 16.01 .2021as null and void.

IA NO: 10F 2021 l)etition under section 151 cPC praying that in th6 circumstances stated in the affidavit filed.in support of the p"iition, in" iigh court.may be pteased to suspend the operation of the Revisio.nl^r.o^"""di;g; #the l",respondent, dated 16'01 '2021 passed for the tax period zo'ts-lita-io1s-16 under the Telangana value '{dded rax..Act 2005, plnoing disposal oiih" above writ petition, as othenruise, the petitioner wouid'oe put to severe ros, anl hardship. counserl for the petitioner: sRr sHAtK JEELANT BASHA Counse,t for the Respondents: SRt Sryl!991goRrLLA., SpL. cp FOR STATE TA)( / GP FOR COMMERCIAL TA)( The Court made the foltowing: ORDER I! I I I i

,:/ IN'I'HE HIGII COURT FOR TIIE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD Tt{B HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAI\{ KOSHY 'rI{E r{oNouRABLE sRr JUSTfl"o*o*arNG RAo NANDTK'NDA WPN of202l Date:24.02.2026 Between: M/s.Plan-A Designtec Solutions Pvt.Ltd., I{yderabad. Petitioner And 'fhe Joint Ccrnmissioner of State Tax, [{_vderabad and otlrers. . . .llespondents ORDER: {Ster l{on'hlc Sri Justice P.Sant Koshy) Fleard Mr.Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel appcaring for the petitioner and Mr.Swaroop oorilla, learned Special Govcrnment pleader ftrr State 'l'ax- appearing fbr the respondents and perused the record.

2. l'he instant is the writ petition which has been filed assailing the order datc'tl 16.01.2021 passed by the revisional authority. The revisional ordcr dated 22.11.2016 was passed under Scction 32 of the 'f'elangana Value Added 'fax Act, 2005 (for short "the Act"). T he irnpugned order has been challenged prirnarily on two grounds. F'irstly, on the ground tl'rat the revisional authority at the first inst"ance lras bccn given authorization to the concerned authority for an auditing report could not have subsequently initiated proceedings calling tbr the revising of the original order passed by the Commercial Tax officer

.r-i (c.T.o.), dated 18.05.2017 after audit was done. The second ground of challenge w'as that the revisional authority could not have initiated the revisional proceeclings in view of the specific bar that is envisaged under Section 32 (5) of the Act.

3. lio far as the first ground is concerned. the undisputcd fact is that the cc'mmercial fax officer had originally passecl the order on 22.11.2016 (Annexure P.4), whereby, it was found that the petitioner was eligible l'or refund of Rs.36,8g,7671- lor the perir:d between February, 2013 to September, 2016. subsequently, the r.evisional authority had ordered the audit of the petitioner's assessment and authoriz:ation to tl^ris effect rvas issued on 14.02.2017 and tfiere was another authorization issued on 30.03.2017 and also a direction for fresh assessment to be made. After which, the C.T.O. had passed a fi-esh order on 18.05.2017 and subsequently, the C.T'.o reached to the conciusion that ther:e seems to be an excess tax paid by the petitioner to a tune of Rs.39,0:i,968/- r.vhich the petitioner was entitled for the refund. It is this order which has been subjected to revision by the revisional authority.

4. T'he undisprri.ed facts which is culled out fiom the proccedings that the;:e is no challenge so far as the competence of the revisional authoritlr is concerned. There is no dispute so far as the initiation of proceedings been clrawn well within the period of limitation prescribed

I* $ i f!t f : under Section 32 of the Act and there arso does not seem to be any challenge so far as the merits of the findings given by trre revisionar airthoriry, rvhereby, the quantum of amount found refuncrabre to the petitioncr stood reduced fiom tts.3 g,05,96g/- to Rs.g,g5 ,gg3r-. tn the absence of any chailenge so far as the competence of the authority, the order bcen not barred by limitation and arso there being no chalrenge to the findings arrived at by the revisionar authority rnay be because of an earlier autho'ization having been issued, by itserf courd not be a ground, by which lrre powers of the revisional authority and c.mpetence gets seized' 't'hc said objection so raised by the petitioner is therefore not sustainablc 5' so far as the second ground is concerned i.e. objection raisecr under section 32 (5) of the Act, it would be relevant at this juncture to reproducc the provision of section 32 (5) of the Act fbr proper appreciation ol.the said ground. It reads thus: .. lt shall be lawful for the Commissiolter to defer any proceeding under this section by the ."uron ofilrJil.r rf,", aii appeal_or. other proceeding i. p"nJirg ,u"i# ,rr" Appe,ate Tribunal oi the Higi Co;; o.'?r,"" slr*,r" courr invotving a question of r'a* having u ai.""t illuri,,g on the order or proceeding in question.,, 6' A plain reading of the aforesaid Section 32(5)of the Act crearry indicate that what is meant f,rom the said provision is that in the event o[. the order .f' tfe concerned authority of which the revision proceedings : ! i i ti i: t: ti Ji li, i;it: :ij .ii:'i i i i , i.t l i \

\ have becn initiatecl is foun{ to be not under challenge betore an1,' of the higher forurns i.e. either appellate authority or Fligh Ctlurt or the Suprerne Court. In that event, the revisional authority should not initiate proceedings till an outcome is arrived at by the higher forum, where the order of the cornpetent authority is under challenge. In tlre instant case, such r.r,as not the casc rvhere the order of the C.T.O. rvas under challenge on its merits before any forums. Only the petition rvhich rvas pending before the High Clourt as claimed by the petitioner is Wi'}.No.230 of 2019 rvhich in{acl. was filed substantially lbr the implementation of the order <rf tire order dated 18.05.2017 and the said vvrit pctitiun r.:irnnot be treated to be one. rvhere the oTder ol' the competent authorit-v being under r:hallenge so as to attract the provision of Section 32(5) of the Act. 'fhe sr'cond ground raised by the petitioner also, thereftrro. vvould be unsust;rinable in the eye ol law.

7. In vierv o['the same, we are left rvith no othcr r:ption hut to hold that the rvrit petition being devoid of rnerits, deserv'es to tre and is accordingly disrnissed. There shall be no order as to costs. M i scel la19ous, appl ications pending, i f any, sh al I stand closed. Sd/.S.MALLIKARJU NA RAO REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,1. One CC to SRI SHAIK JEELANI BASHA, Advocate IOPUC]

2. Two CCs to SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPL GP FOR STATE TAX, High Oourt for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

3. Two CCs to GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX, High Court for the State of T'elangana. IOUTI

4. Two CD Copies EIN fr- PMK i I r

n HIGH COURT DATED:2410212026

c) ( '[ric; t\l € 1 2 i:iq ?0?r

ORDER

* WP.No.23289 of 2021 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHC)UT COSTS KS * r,[slze f