M/s Isitva Steel Pvt Ltd V. Commercial Tax Officer and 3 others

WP/19069/2020

AI Insights

The case involves multiple writ petitions filed by various companies against the State of Telangana and its tax officials, challenging the assessment orders and show-cause notices issued under the Telangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001. The petitioners argued that the assessments were made beyond the permissible period and were thus illegal and arbitrary. The respondents contended that the assessments were justified and cited the need for revenue generation. The court examined the statutory provisions regarding the limitation period for tax assessments and the principles of natural justice, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioners.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 738158 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: M/s Jindal Stainless Ltd & Anr vs. State of Haryana, State of Punjab and others vs. Shreyans Indus Ltd, KMK Event Management Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India, Spenta Industries Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and others, Competition Commission of India vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and another, Union of India vs. Ind-Swift Laboratories Limited
• Laws Referred To: Telangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001, Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005, Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SWAROOP OORILLA
• Assessee Lawyers: KARAN TALWAR; M NAGA DEEPAK; S DWARAKANATH; SRINIVASA RAO KUDUPUDI; KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Entry Tax; Goods and Services Tax; Limitation; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 226; 21(3); 151 CPC; 21(4); 21(7)

Judgement Text

"[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENry SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION Nos. 24121 ,24123. AND 24227 0F 2018: WRIT PETITION Nos.19069 19044 16294 12665 8616 AND WRIT PETITION Nos.5550 8455 0F 2020 5546 AND 7562 0F 2021 8404 AND 8526 0F 2022 AND WRIT PETITION Nos.26297 AND 26152 0F 2023 WRIT PETITION No.24121OF 2018 Between: M/s owens. corning lndustries, India .Private Limited, Having its registered office at 37 lo 44. Hyderabad Bangalore Highway Road, Thimmao-ur Villate Thimmaour Mahbubnagar, Telangana 509325 Reprrisented by its Gbnerat ft,l\"anagei - pia;i Operations, [Vlr. Mahender Boda. ..PETITIONER AND 1. The Commercial Tax Officer, Begumpet Circle, Hyderabad 2. Deputy Commissioner (CT), Begumpet Division 3. State of Telangana, Through Principal Secretary to Government Revenue Department (Commercial Tax) Secretariat, Hydera'bad _ ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of . the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances. stated - in .the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the .l.t Respondent in passing the 2 Assessment order bearing A.o. No- 30g59 passed by the '1't Respondent, dated 31-05.2018 confirming a demand of rNR 69,21,062t- for the Fy 2012-13 under the Telangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001 on use of furnace oil as inputs for the manufacture of glass fibres as being illegat, arbitrary, barred by limitation, viorative of section 3(2) of the said Act, and principres of natural justice for not having considered all the submis;sions of the petitioner, and without jurisdiction and viorative of Articre 14 and Articre 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution of lndia. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay the recovery of the tax demanded pursuant to the said impugned assessment order bearing A.o.No. 30g58 passed by the 1st Respondent, dated 31.05.20'18 confirming a demand of INR 69,21,0671_forthe Fy 20.12_13. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KARAN TALWAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER WRIT PETITION NO:24123 OF 2018 Between: M/s' owens corning rndustries rndia, private Limite-d, Having its registered office at 37 to 44-HvderabaZ Banoatorg^ Itigjw;t'R;j.'liir.glu Viilage, Thimmapur, 53!i,1P,fl1Yii;h'iil??:?;'.91'25\"ciii;6.\"i,tEi'ov\"iisc'ene,aira'#\"s;i':\"FI#t AND ...PETIT!oNER 1. The Commercial Tax Officer, Begumpet Circle, Hyderabad. 2. Deputy Commissioner (CT), Begumpet Division. 3. State of Telangana, Through ?rincipal--.lsecretarv I - oiilirtii.iliittii,liir\"'iirrax) secrerariat, HyoerabJi Government Revenue ...RESPONDENTS 3 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 a writ. order or direction particularly one in the nature of a wRlr OF MANDAIvIUS declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in passing the Assessment Order bearing A.O_ No. 30859 passed by the 1st Respondent, dated 31.05 2018 confirming a demand of INR 2,43,03,414t- for the Fy 20.13_14 under the Telangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001 on use of furnace oil as inputs for the manufacture of glass fibres as being illegal, arbitrary, barred by limitation, violative of section 3(2) of the said Act, and principles of natural justice for not having considered all the submissions of the petitioner, and without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14 and Articte I 9(1)(g) of the Constitution of lndia. lA NO: I OF 2018 Petition under section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the recovery of the tax demanded pursuant to the said impugned assessment order bearing Ao No. 30859 passed by the 1st Respondent, dated.3.l .05.2018 confirming a demand of INR 2,43,03 ,4141- lor the Fy 2013-14. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KARAN TALWAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER WRIT PETITION NO:24227 oF 2018 Between: M/s. HSR Ventures Pvt. Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. Ltd, Having its office at 1-1-230113t5, Viveknagar, ...PETITIONER AND 1 The State of . Telangana, Rep. by the principal Secretary, Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hlrderabad Revenue 4 2. Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Ashoknagar Circle, Secunderabad Division Hyderabad. ,...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of lrdia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, direction or order more particularly in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the Assessment order no. 21223 dated 31-03-201g issued by Respondent No. 2 for the assessment year 2012-13 under the Telangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, unsustainable, and quash the same. 200'l as being void, illegal, and lA NO: I OF 2018 Petition under section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the collection of tax under the impugned Assessment order no. 21223 dated 31- 03-201 8 issued by Respondent No. 2 for the assessmen t year 2o12-13 under the Telangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 20Ct1. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. NAGA DEEPAK Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER WRIT PETITION NO: 19069 0F 2020 Between: M/s lsitva Telangana AND Steel Pvt. Ltd , S.No 58. Nagaram, . ECIL, Hyderabad, Rangareddy, -62 Represented by its Director, i.ghaskara Rao' -- -- ...PETITIONER 1 2 a Commercial Tax Officer. Keesara Circle, 3d Floor, Blc,ck -M- lV, Ivlanoranjan Complex, MJ Road, Hyd'erabad fetangiira. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Keesara Circle, Saroornagar Division, Hyderabad. Appellate Joint commissioner (sr), Hyderabad Rurar Division, Hyderabad. 4 Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the definition of importer under Section 2 (1) (h) read with Section 3(1) (a) of the Telangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 200-l as being unconstitutional on account of being vague, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 and A(icle 265 of the Constitution of lndia, and as also that of Section 174 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as being ultra vires the Constitution 'l 0-l st Amendment Act, 2016 and devoid of legislative competence,on account of Entry 52 of List ll of Schedule Vll being omitted from 16tgt2O16_ and the legality and validity of the Impugned Order bearing ADC No.982 dated 3OtO5t2O2O confirming demand of INR 4.45,1641- tor the Fy 2012-13 under the Telangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001 on the importation of Furnace Oil, as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Section 3(2) of the said Telangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001, and without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14 and Article t9(1Xg) of the Constitution of lndia. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 stay the recovery of the tax demanded pursuant to the said lmpugned Order bearing ADC No.982 by the Respondent No.3, dated 30/05/2020 confirming demand of INR 4,45,164/- for the FY 2012-13 under the Telangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 200 1 . Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KARAN TALWAR Counsel for the Respondents.: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER 5 State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (RevenueXCT) department, Telangana Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 6 WRIT PETITION NO: 19o44 0F 2020 Between: M/s lsitva Telangana AND Slgel Pvt Ltd., S No 58, .Nagaram, .ECIL, tlyderabad, Rangareddy. -62 Represented by its Director,k. Bhasker Rio ' ...PETITIONER 1. commerciar rax officer Keesara circre, 3'd Froor, Brock - M- rv, Manoranjan Complex, MJ Road, Hycierabad i\"trqini 2- Assistant commissioner of state Tax, Keesara circre Saroornagar Division, Hyderabad. 3- Appellate Joint commissioner (ST), Hyderabad Rurar Division, Hyderabad. 4. State . of .Telanganr, F\"p. Qy its principal Secretary (Revenue)(CT) department, Telangana Secietariht Buildings, HyOeranao ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 ot rhe constitution of rrrdia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction particurarry one in the nature of a wRrr oF MANDAMUS decraring the definition of \"importer' under Section 2 (i) (h) read with section 3(1) (a) of the Telangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001 as being unconstitutionar on account of being vague, arbitrary, viorative of Article 14 and A.ticre 265 of the constitution of rndia, and as arso that of section 174 of the Telangana Goods and services Tax Act, 2017 its being urtra vires the constitution 101st Amendment Act 20't6 and devoid of reg srative competence on account of Entry 52 0f List 1'r of schedure VI being omitte,d from 16.g.2016, and the legality and varidity of the rmpugned order bearing ADC No.9g.r dated 30.05.2020 confirming demand of INR 4,03,390/- for the cy 2011_12 under the Telangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Locar Areas Act, 200.r on the importation of Furnace Oil, as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Section 3(2) of the said Terangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Locar Areas Act, 2001, and without jurisdiction and viorative of A.ticre 14 and Articre i9(1xg) of the constitution of lndia. 7 lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 stay the recovery of the tax demanded pursuant to the said lmpugned Order bearing ADC No.9B1 by the Respondent No.3, dated 30.05.2020 confirming demand of INR 4,03,390/- for the FY 2011-12 under the Telangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KARAN TALWAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER WRIT PET|TION NO: 16294 OF 2020 Between: Kumuda Clqqtiv_e_ lngineers Pv!. Ltd , Plot No.2B, phase-l, I D A, Jeedimefla, Telan-gana 5.0095_5 Represented by its 4ri16.,;r.d Signatory, Koneru Srinivasa Rao, S/o. K. Murahari Rao, Aged 67 Years, R/o. Hyderabad ...PETITIONER AND 1. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad 2. The Commercial Tax Officer, Jeedimetla Division, Hyderabad, Telangana. 3. The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue (ST), Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...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 a writ, direction or order more particularly in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the assessment order AO No. 28998 dated 21t 5l2 1g passed by the Respondent No.2 and consequently the impugned ADC Order No. 11B8 dated 271OG12020 passed by the'Respondent Nb-.1 as being void, illeg-|, violative of Article 265 and consequently Article 286 of the Constitution of India, totally without jurisdiction and violative of the principles of natural justice. 8 lA NO: 1 OF 2O2O Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High courl may be pleased to stay all further proceedings and consequentiaI actions pursuant to the ADC order No, 1 1 88 dated 2710612020 passed by the Respondent No. 1 . Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. NAGA DEEPAK Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER WRIT PETITION NO: 126650F 2020 Between: M/s.Gayatri Sugars Limited, 6-3-1090, 82, ll Ftoor, Raibhavan Road. Somai lyderabad, Re[resented by its Autn oiizeo si gnJtory i'i' C,;;il, t%' .YV:'3 Rao, Aged 63 y'ears, R/o Hfderabad uguda, reehari ...PETITIONER AND 1. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secundrabad Division. 2. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Ashoknagar Circle, Hyderabad 3. State of Telanoana R^epresented. by the princip;rl Secretary, Revenue Department. TetEngaha secretiiiil, Hv6.or\"o.\"\"\"' ...RESPONOENTS Petition under Articre 226 of rhe constitution of Inlia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, direction or order more particularly in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the assessment order A.o.No. 13g8g dated 2yo3no1g passed by the Respondent No. 2 and consequenfly the imprugned ADC order No. 984 dated 2810512020 passed by the Respondent No. 1 as being void, iflegal, violative of Article 265 and consequen y Article 2g6 of thr: constitution of lndia totally without iurisdiction and viorative of the principres of n:rturar justice. 9 lA NO:1 OF 2020 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 stay all further proceedings and consequential actions pursuant to the ADC Order No. 984 dated 2810512020 passed by the Respondent No.1. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. NAGA DEEPAK Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER WRIT PETITION NO: 8616 OF 2020 Between: I,VI/s, Bhoorathnom Construction Company Pvt. Secundrabad - 500 003 Reoresented bv its Manaoino S/o. Late A. K. Lakshmipathy, Aged ab6ut 66 yeais, \"R Ltd., 7-3-720, R.P.Road, Director, Mr. A.L. Rajashanker, /o. Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER AND 1 . The State of Telangana, Rep by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad 2. Appeltate Dy.Commissioner (CT), Secundrabad Division. 3. The Commercial Tax Officer, Hisamganj Circle, Secundrabad. ...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 a writ, direction or order more particularly in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the impugned ADC Order No. 805 dated 3OlO4l2O20 passed by the Respondent No. 2 and consequently the Assessment order No. 6758 dated 2810212018 issued by Respondent No. 3 for the assessment year 2O11-'12 under the Telangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 200'1 as being void, illegal, and unsustaiilable, and quash the same. t0 lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circunrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the collection of tax under the impugned ADC order No g05 dated 30-04-2020 issued by Respondent No. 3 for the assessment year 2011-12 under the Telangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 20r)1. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. NAGA DEEPAK counser ror the Respono\"\"\"' B3JYfl33i=t*o^fthffi 'LEADER WRIT PETITION NO:8455 0F 2020 Between: r/r Bhoorathnom Construction . .Copp.a-ny pvt. _,Ltd. 7-j..720, R.p.Road, sceundrabad - 500 003 Reoresented by its Mahaging Direckrr, rrrrr. nr.haji.nrnlir, s/o Late A.K.Lakshmipatnt'nsed \"ooui oo ?;;;:Fii\". H;;#d;ii 'r'L r rqrur\"qrr..!' ...PETITIONER AND 1 lE^fllt:, of , Tetangana, F\"p. .QV . the principat Secretary, Revenue uepanment, I etangana Secretariat. Hyderabad 2. Appellate Dy.Commisiioner (CT), Secundrabad Division 3. The Commercial Tax Officer, Hisamganj Circle, Secunrlrabad ...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 a writ, direction or order more particularly in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the impugned ADC order No. g06 dated 30-04-2020 passed by the Respondent No.2 and consequenfly the Assessment order No. 6760 dated 28-02-2018 issued by Respondent No, 3 for the assessme.t year 2012-13 under the Telangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 200.1 as being void, illegal, and unsustainable and quash the same. ll lA NO: 'l OF 2020 Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the collection of tax under the impugned ADC Order No. 806 daled 3O-O4-202O issued by Respondent No. 3 for the assessment year 2012-13 undar the Telangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001 . Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. NAGA DEEPAK Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER WRIT PETITION NO: 5550 OF 2021 Between: M/s. ABB lndia Limited, rep. by its Head of lndirect Taxes, Mr. Santhosh Kumar, Plot No. 1 ,2,3,4, 'lOth Floor, Western Aqua, Hitech City, Whitefield, Kondapur, Hyderabad-500 084. ...PETITIONER AND '1. Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderguda-Ashoknagar Circle, Hyderabad. 2. State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (CT-ll) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...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 a Writ of Prohibition interdicting the 1't Respondent from proceeding with the assessment of the Petitioner under the Telangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001for the assessment year 2011-12 initiated under show cause notice dated 21212O21 as being barred by limitation and without jurisdiction. t2 lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the c:ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court nray be preased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice dated 21212021 of the 1st Respondent for the assessment year 2o11-12 under the Terangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 200.1 , pending disposal of the Writ Petition, as otherwise the petitioner will be put to severe los:; and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. DWARAKANATH, SENTOR COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER WRIT PETITION NO: 5546 0F 2021 Between: M/s. ABB lndia Limited. reo No. 'l ,2,3,4, 1Oth Ftoorl Hyderabad-500 084. by its Head of lndirect Taxes, Mr. Santhosh Kurirar. plot Western Aqua, Hitech Ciiy, r1y6;,;t'-'6: 'xoilil;, the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be of Prohibition interdicting the 1st Respondent from AND circumstances stated in pleased to issue a Writ 1. Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderguda_Ashoknagar Circle, Hyderabad. ' 3?1\", f5#:?ilg3li' dEB;iJ,, lli'r;;ffi ,i,x::*,.ta ry to G ove rn me n t, Reve n u e ..PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the proceeding with the assessment of the petitioner under thr: Terangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Locar Areas Act, 2001for the assess;ment year 2012-13 initiated under show cause notice dated 2.2.2o21as being barred by rimitation and without jurisdiction. t3 lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice dated 2.2.2021 of the 1st Respondent for the assessment year 2012-13 under the Telangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, as otherwise the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. DWARAKANATH, SENIOR COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER WRIT PETITION NO: 7562 OF 2021 Between: M/s. G.._Krishna flqd_dy, Rep _.by1ts Partner. trrlr. G. prashanth Reddy, Flat No.508, Surya Mansion. Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad-500 003. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-1, Nizamabad Circle, Nizamabad. 2. Commercial Tax Officer-ll, Nizamabad Circle, Nizamabad. 3. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Opp: Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 4. Slate_ of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (CT-ll) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the impugned order of the 1't Respondent dated gt2l2T1g (received lcy the Petitioner on 17 t312O20) behring AAO No.6305/2OtS for the assessment year 2014-15 qnder the Telangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Local l4 Areas Act, 2001 as being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdir;tion and contrary to the Circular of the 3'd Respondent, dated 17lB/2002. IA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circunrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court rnay be preased to grant stay of recovery of disputed tax of Rs.3,71 , g74l-pursuant t,c the impugned order of the 1st Respondent dated 9t2t2o1g for the assessment year 2014-1s under the Telangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2cr01 , pending disposal of the Writ Petition as otherwise the petitioner will hardship. be put to severe loss and Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. DWARAKANATH, SENIOR COUNSEL SRI KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER WRIT PETI TION NO: 8404 0F 2022 Between: ...PETITIONER AND M/s.Shankara Buildino Proiects Limited, Having its off.rce al-S-t1t571/1, HILL Skeet, Ranisunj, .Secundrabid, tiyg;rrb;q;i9r'J\"liY,r\" \"6bo 003 Represented bv *s Authorized Signatory SachinKumar Sio ttaiJiin\" rfrfoJtyan, aged i? y;;;;:- -, ' The State of Telanoana F\"p .QV . the principal Secretary, Revenue Department. Tetangan5 Secretaiiat, Hia\"irO\"O\"\"\"\"-' Deputy Commercial Tax Officer - t, Ramgopalpet, Ranigunj Circle, Begumpet Division Hyderabad. ..,RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praving that in lhe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, direction or order more particurarry in the nature of a writ of mandamus decraring the Assessment order no. 40 dated r)5to1t?-o22 issued by 1 2 l5 Respondent No. 2 for the assessment yea( 2012-13 under the Telangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001 as being void, illegal, without jurisdiction and without authority of law and unsustainable, and consequently set aside the same- IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 stay the collection of tax under the impugned Assessment Order no- 40 dated 0510112022 issued by Respondent No. 2 for the assessmenl year 2012-13 under the Telangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 200'1 . Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. NAGA DEEPAK Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER WRIT PETITION NO: 8526 OF 2022 Between: M/s.Shankara Building Projects Limited, Having its office at 511157111, HILL Street, Ranigunj, Secundrabad, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 003 Represented by its Authorized Signatory Sachin Kumar S/o. Narayana, 1900149, aged 37 years ...PETITIONER AND 1. I The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad Deputy Commercial Tax Officer - l, Ramgopalpet, Ranigunj Circle, Begumpet Division Hyderabad. ...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 a writ, direction or order,more particularly in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the Assessment Order no. 41 dated 0510112022 issued by Respondent No. 2 for the assessmenl year 2O13-14 under the Telangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001 as being void, illegal, without t6 jurisdiction and without authority of law and unsustainable, anci consequently set aside the same lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 15'l cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the collection of tax under the impugned Assessment order no. 41 dated 0510112022 issued by Respondent No. 2 for the assessment year 2013-i4 under the Telangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act 2001. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. NAGA DEEPAK Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER WRIT PETITION NO: 26297 0F 2023 Between: M/s J rlerugu- venkata Reddy, rep- by its proprietor Mr. M. venkata Reddy Door No.103, Siri Apartment, foaaO-SObZOO, fetang;niSiaie ...PETITIONER AND 1 2. The Commercial Tax Officer, Kodad circle Kodad, Telarngana State The Appellate Joint Hyderabad Commissioner (ST), Hyderabad Rural Division, The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Nampally, Hyderabad, Telangana State State of Telangana, rep_. by its Se:retary. to Government, Revenue (CT_ll) Department Secretariat, Telingana State, Hyderabad. J 4 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rncria praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction setting aside the order of the 2nd Respondent dated 15.5.2023 (Ao No.279) confirming the assessment order dated 13.g.2021 rbr the period 2017-1g (April to June 2017) under the Terangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Locar Areas l7 Act, 2001 as being illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and barred by limitation and contrary to the decisions of the Hon'ble Courts. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 direct grant stay of recovery of the impugned demand of Rs.'l 1,29,570/- for the period 2017-18 (April to June 20'17)under the Telangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001, pending disposal of the Writ Petition as otherwise the Petitioner wilt be put severe loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA RAO KUDUPUDI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER WRIT PETITION NO: 26152 OF 2023 Between: M/s Jvlelggu. Venkata B-\"d9y, jgp.ly its.Proprietor Mr. M. Venkata Reddy Door No.'l 03, Siri Apartment, Kodad-508206, Telangana State ...PETITIONER AND 1. 2. The Commercial Tax Officer, Kodad circle Kodad, Telangana State. The Appellate Joint Commissioner (ST), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad The Commissioner of Gommercial Taxes, Nampally, Hyderabad, Telangana State 4. State of Telangana, rep. by its Secreta Department Secretariat, Telangana State ry to Government, Revenue (CT-ll) , Hyderabad. ...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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction setting aside the order of the 2nd Respondent dated 15.5.2023 (AO No.278) confirming the assessment order dated 13.9.2021 for the period 2016-17 'l l8 under the Telangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001 as being illegal, arbitrary, in vrolation of principles of natural justice and barred by limitation and contrary to the decisions of the Hon'ble Courts. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court rnay be pleased to direct grant stay of recovery of the impugned demand of Rs.22,05,3511 for the period 2016-17 under the Terangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Locar Areas Act, 2001, pending disposal of the writ petition as otherwise the petitioner will be put severe loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA RAO KUDUP|JDI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI Writ Petition Nos. 24L2L,24t23, and.24227 of 2Ol8: Writ Petition Nos. 19O69, 19044, L6294,l?.605,' 8616 and a4SS of2O2O rit Petition Nos.555O 5546 and 7562 of 2O2l 8404 and A526 of 2022 and Writ Petition Nos.26297 alnd.26152 of 2023 COMMON ORDER @er the Hon'ble Sn Justice P.SAM KosHY) Heard the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. S. Dwarakanath, ald Mr. Karan Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, for the resPondents. 2. The instant batch of writ petitions are filed under the Telangana Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001. All these batch of writ petitions are being taken up for consideration on one preliminary objection raised by the petitioners arrd for which some of the writ petitions were entertained at the show cause notice level, some at the level of assessment orders, and some against the appellate orders' 3. The point for consideration by way of the preliminary objection raised by the petitioners are whether the show cause notice or the assessment orders passed in all these bunch of writ Page 2 of 31 petitions are sustainable at all in view of the sPecific period of limitation prescribed under Section 2 1(3) and ljection 21$l of the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 20O5 (for short, TSVAT Act'). 4. Before we delve into the issue of limitation, it would be relevant at the outset itself to reproduce the t vo stLb-sections under which the petitioners are backing upon their case. The said two sub-sections of TSVAT Act read as under: \"(3) Where the authoitg prescibed is not sotis.fied uith a return filed by the VAT dealer or TOT dealer or the return appears to be incorrect or incomplete, he shall- assess to the best of his judgment uithin four years of unjab Act. In uieu-t thereof, it maA not be appropiate to go into the nuanced distinction betuteen \"deferment\" and \"e.ttension\" as per the definitions contained in Black's Lottt Dictionary in the giuen situation, u.thich is dealt tuith in the instant appea'ls. 22. Euen otheruLise, it is important to understarld the ratio laid doun in the judgment of the Katnatakct High Court in BHEL IBHEL u. CCT, (2006) 143 STC 10 (Kar).r . The: issue in the said case before the Karnataka High Cout utas as to tthether the pouter to pass a defennent order is to be exercised euen afier the expiry of the peiod of limitation uthich utas ansutered in the negatiue. The reasons giuen in support of this conclusion are as follott-ts: (ST{: pp. 15-16' para 8) \"8. ... Defermenl o1[ assessment has the effizct of enlorging the peiod of limitation uthich did not expire bA the time the defetment order is contemplated to be passed. When once the peiod of timitotion erpires, the immunitg against being subject fo assessmenl sets in and the ight to make assessmenl gets ertingaished. Resort to deferment prouisions does not retrteue the situation. There is no question of deferring assessment ulhich had alreadg become time' baned. The prouision for exclusion of time in computing the peiod of limitation of defermcznt of assessmenl is meant to preuent further ruruing Page 15 of 31 of time against the Reuenue if the limitation had not expired. \" (emphasis supplied) It utas also obserued that upon the lapse of the peiod of limitation prescibed, the ight of the Departmenf ,o assess an assessee geb ertinguished and this extension confers a uery ualuable right on the ossessee. 23. 24. The argument of the leamed Senior Counsel for the appellants based on Section 148 CPC tttould be of no consequence. This section categorically states that pouer to enlarge the period can be exercised euen uthen peiod oiginaltg fixed has expired. Likeu.tise, reliance upon Section 139(2) of the Income Tax Act is misconceiued. That prouision is made for the benefit of lhe assessee u.thich empouters the assessing officer to grant an ertension of time for filing of the return of income and, therefore, obuiouslg rttill haue no bearing on th.e issue at hand. Moreouer, this Court in Ajanta Electicals case ICIT u. Ajanta Electicals, (1995) 4 SCC 182] , uthich is relied upon bg the learned counsel for the appellant, hetd that the time ccin be extended euen after the time allouLed onginatlg ho's expired on the interpretation of the toords 'it hos not been possible\" occurring in Section 133(2) of the Act. The Court, thus, opined that the aforesaid expression would mean that the time can be extended euen after originat time prescribed in the said prouision has expired. Same is our ansluer to the argument of Mr Ganguli predicated on Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 194O as that prouision utas in altogether different context.\" Page t6 of 31 22. Similarly, in the case of KMK Event Management Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxess, a D ivision Bench of the High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh held at paragraph Nos.26, 27,29 and 33 as under, viz., \"26. The first limb of both section 21(7) ond section 31(4A), tthich prouide for the consequences of defennent of assessmenf and appellate proceedings, utould operate onlg u-then the potuer of deferment is specificallg conferred on a specified authoity/ authorities and is exercisetd by them pursuant to such confennent. A plain and litera.l reading of the oforesaid prouisions moke it clear that setction 2 1 (7) , section 32(4A) and section 32(7) onlg prouide for the consequences of deferment of (i) assessment, (ii) appeal before the appellate authoitg, and (iii) reuision under section 32 of the VAT Act, respectiuelg. Theg do no| bg tLemselues' confer on the said authoities the pou.ter to defer the proceedings. It is only because section 32(5) specificctltg confers such a pou)er, can the Commissioner defer reuision proceedings initiated under section 32(1) and (2) of the VAT Act. The uery fact that, uLhile the consequences of defennent orf assessment proceedings, appellate proceedingts before the appellate authority and reuision proceedings arn 3 of the Preuention. of Corruption Act, 1988 empou)er the Gouernment to appoint as mang Special Judges as maA be nzcessorg for such areo or areas or for such case or group of cases, as maA be specifed in the notification. Construing the italicised \"or\" it raos held that it tuould mean thot the Gouernment has the pouer to do either or both the things i.e. the Gouemment moA, euen for an area for uthich a Special JudgTe hns been appointed-, appoint a Special Judge for a case or group of cases. 32. LikeuLise, in Mazagaon Dock Ltd. u. CIT and Excess Profits Tax IAIR 1958 SC 861 : (1959) 1 SCR 848] , tuord \"or\" occurring under Section a2Q) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 u)as constnted as \"and-\" uhen the Court found that the legislature \"could not haue intended\" use of the expression \"or\" in that Section. We haue alreadg explained the stotutory scheme contained in the Act and the Rules u.tltich express manifest intention of the legislature which prouide for granting of both kinds of rebates to the a.ssessee. In Mazogaon Dock Ltd. IAIR 1958 SC 861 : (1959) 1 SCR 848] ' this aspect utas explained in the follouing mattner: (AIR p' 865-66, para 1O) \"1O. The utord 'or' in the clause tuould appear to be rather inappropiate, as if is susceptible of the interpretation that tahen some profits are made but they are less thant the normal profits, tox could onlg be imposed either on the one or on the other, and that accordirtglg a tax on the actual profits eanted utould bctr the imposition of tox. on profits uhich might haue I I P age 27 of lL been receiued. Obuiouslg, that could not haue been intended, ond the utord 'or' uould haue to be read in the context as meaning 'ond' Vide Maxwell's Interpretation of Statutes, loth Edn., pp. 238-39. But tha[ hott-teuer, does not affect the present question u-thich is whether the tuord 'deriued' indubitablg points to the business of the non-resident as the one toxable under Section 42(2), and for the reasons alreadg giuen, the ansu)er must be in the negatiue.\" 26, The two decisions referred to by the learned Special , Government Pleader for the respondents in the case of Competition Commission of India vs. Steel Authority of faaia Limited and anotherz and Union of India vs' Ind-Swift Laboratories Limiteds, dealing with the interpretation of the word \"or\", the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held in ' 'I both these decisions that the provision of a taxing statute must be interpreted in the light of what is clearly expressed' It fu held that it would not be permissible to import rther plovlsrons deficiency. the High in a taxing statute so as to supply any assumed The Hon'ble Supreme Court found the view taken by Court in reading down the provision of law by '(2otoltos.c.c.tqq \" (zorr) a s.c.c. o:s Page 28 of 31 substituting the word \"or\" by an \"and\" so as to give relief, was found to be erroneous. 27. As regards the other three writ petitions, viz., Writ Petition No.26152 of 2023, Writ Petition No.26297 of 2023 and Writ Petition No.7562 of 2O2l are concerned wher,e there was an issue as regards the proceedings being barred by limitation or not, in Writ Petition No.26152 of 2023 the Assessment Order is for the year 2016-77 which is four (04) years from the last date of the Financial Year, i.e., from 31.03.2017 Llll 31.03.2021, whereas the Assessment Order in the instant ceLse is one which has been issued on 3O.O9.2O21 which is much beyond the four year period. Therefore, for the reasons stated jn the preceding paragraphs, we are of the considered opinion that the said Writ Petition No.26152 of 2023 also for the same ground ,Ceserves to be and is accordingly a1lowed. No costs. 2a. Similarly, in Writ Petition No.26297 of 2023, the Assessment Order is for the period Aprll, 2017 to June, 2O17, i.e., for a period of two (02) months, as subsequently the new tax regime under the G.S.T. had come into force. For these two month period also, i.e., from April, 2017 to Junt:, 2017, the four year period would come to an end in June, 2O21. However, the Page 29 of 31 Assessment Order in the said writ petition had been passed on 13.09.2021 which again is beyond a period of four (04) years, and for the reasons mentioned in the earlier writ petition, viz., Writ Petition No.26152 of 2023, the present Writ Petition also ,i deserves to be and is accordingly allowed on the same ground on l which the other batch of writ petitions have been allowed. No costs. 29. Coming to the third writ petition, i.e., Writ Petition No.7562 of 2O2L, the Assessment Order is for the year 2Ol4-15, i.e., which is four (04) years from the last date of financial year, i.e., from 31.O3.2015 to 30.01.2019, and the impugned show- cause notice was issued on 30.01.2019 and the Assessment ,Order was passed on 09.O2.2019, i.e., just around ten (10) days' time from the date of issuance of the show-camse notice' Therefore, though the period of limitation hits the assessment up till January,2Ol5, but the period February and March, 2015, the period comes within the four years of limitation prescribed' Thus, the Assessment Order would be sustainable on the aspect of limitation only for the period February and March, 2015' However, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners drew the attention of the Court to the hasty manner iri which the proceedings were concluded, i'e', the show-cause Page 30 of 31 notice issued on 3O.01.2O 19 and also the fitral Assessment Order passed on 09.O2.2079, i.e., just around ten (10) days. He further made a categorical statement that even the show-cause notice which was issued by the respondent-Autl-rorities was not effectively served and no opportunity of persorLal hearing was provided to the petitioners. He, therefore, conter.ded that for the reason that the limitation had expired, the respondents, by- passing the statutory proceedings prescribed for an effective I hearing, abmptly issued the impugned notice and con.cluded the I proceedings in ten (1O) days' time. Thus, we r1o not Iind any hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that the impugned Assessment Order dated O9.O2.2O19 even though is within limitation for a period of two (02) months, i.e,, Februar5r and March, 2015, but for the reason that there is a <:lear violation of principles of natural justice and also violation of the statutory provisions prescribed before passing of the impugned Assessment Order, the order dated 09.02.2019' passed by the Assessing Oflicer would not be sustainable ald the same j deserves to be set aside. Therefore, the Writ Petition No.7562 of 2021 therefore also deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. No costs. Page 31 of 31 30. It is by now a well settled proposition of law that when the plain reading of the provision of law is unambiguous and is very clear in its intent and object, the need for giving a different interpretation which is other-wise not reflected on its plain reading, cannot be permitted or that may not be sustainable. The argument advanced by the learned Special Government Pleader in the given factual backdrop and the judicial precedents referred to in the preceding paragraphs would not be I sustainable. Therefore, ali the Writ Petitions to the aforesaid .extent would be liable to be allowed, as either the show-cause ,t lnotices or the assessment orders in all the writ petitions have ribben issued beyond the period envisaqpd under Section 21 ofthe Act. Therefore, the impugnecl notices and orders are all set AS The Writ Petitions are allowed. No cdsts As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. ide That Rule Nisi has been made absolute in respect of WP.No.19069, 19044, 16294, 12665, 8616 and 8455 of 2020. Witness the HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ALOK ARADHE, on this Friday, the Twenty Sixth Day of April, Two Thousand and Twenty Four. SD/-B. SARASWATHI ASSISTANT BEGFfRAR //TRUE COPY/I -v SECTIOMOFFICER to, 1. The Commercial Tax Officer, Begumpet Circle, Hyderabad 2. The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Begumpet Division 3. The Principal Secretary to Government Revenue Department (Commercial Tax) State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State: of Telangana' Telangana Secretariat, HYderabad 5.TheAssistantCommissionerofstateTaxes,AshoknagarCircle, Secunderabad Division HYderabad 6- The Commercial Tax Officer, Keesara Circle, 3\"r Floor, Block -M- lV' Manoranjan Complex, MJ Road, Hyderabad Telangarra' 7_ The Assistant commissioner of state Tax, Keesara circle, Saroornagar Division, Hyderabad. 8. The Appellate Joint Commissioner (ST), Hyde'rabad Rural Division, Hyderabad. 9. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad 10-The Commercial Tax Officer, Jeedimetla Division, Hyderabad, Telangana' 1 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue (ST), ptate of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. l2.Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secundrabad Division. l3.Assistant Commissioner (ST), Ashoknagar Circle, Hyderabad 14.The Commercial Tax Officer, Hisamganj Circle, Secutrdrabad 15.The Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderguda-Ashoknagar Circle, Hyderabad. 16.The Principal Secretary to Government, fi\"r\"nr\" (CI--ll) Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad 1 7. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-.l , Nizamabad Circle, Nizamabad- 18.The CommercialTax Officer-ll, Nizamabad Cirole, Niz:amabad. 19.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Opp: Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally' State of Telangana, Hyderabad- 20.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer - l, Ramgopalpet Ranigunj Circle, Begumpet Division Hyderabad. 21 . The Commercial Tax Officer, Kodad circle Kodad, Te angana State. 22.One CC to SRI KARAN TALWAR, Advocate [OPUCI 23.Two CCs to SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, Special Government Pleader' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 24:One CC to SRI M. NAGA DEEPAK, Advocate [OPUC] 25.One CC to SRI S. DWARAKANATH, Senior Counsel IOPUC] 26.One CC to SRI SRINIVASA RAO KUDUPUDI, Advocate [OPUC] 27 .One CC to SRI KARTHIK RAA,4ANA PUTTAMREDD ', Advocate [OPUC] 28.Two CD Copies MP 2t HIGH COURT DATED:2610412024 ( - -il.' J 11 JL'|. 204 c) * t)Es pA'rc d COMMON ORDER W.P. Nos. 24121,24123, AND 24227 OF 2O1B; W.P. Nos.19069, 19044, 16294, 12665, 8616 AND w.p. Nos.5s50, 5s46 AND tLaz orr&-r1trffiii,'d 8s26 0F 2022 w.P. Nos. zG2srAND 26152 oF fJ;? ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS 2-1 I "