Point of Law: It is evident that when an order of assessment, re-assessment, rectification or revision of an assessment is made following an order of any Court, the same is required to be made within three years from the date of receipt of such order by the prescribed or revising authority.

ORDER:

Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Heard Mr. Karan Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.Raji Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax for the respondents.

2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

1. To set aside revision notice of assessment dated 11.07.2011;

2. To direct the respondents to refund a sum of Rs.40,00,000.00 to the petitioner; and

3. To direct the respondents to pay interest @ 1% per month for the delay in granting the refund.

3. Petitioner was a registered dealer under the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (briefly referred to hereinafter as the ‘VAT Act’). Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing pre-engineered steel buildings.

4. For the assessment period 2008-09, assessment order was passed by the 1st respondent on 08.06.2009 under the VAT Act levying tax of Rs.1,14,858.00.

5. On the ground that the aforesaid order was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, revised notice of assessment dated 11.07.2011 was issued by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, respondent No.2 passed revisional order dated 29.07.2011 enhancing the levy of tax to Rs.1,51,63,868.00.

6. The aforesaid revisional order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing W.P.No.22880 of 2011. This Court by order dated 30.08.2011 held that no personal hearing was granted to the petitioner before passing the revisional order. There was thus violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the revisional order dated 29.07.2011 was set aside with a further direction to the 2nd respondent to pass fresh order in accordance with law. Accordingly, the revision was allowed.

7. Following the order passed by this Court, 2nd respondent issued revision notice dated 10.11.2011 providing for personal hearing on 28.11.2011. It is stated that the authorized representative of the petitioner had attended the personal hearing so fixed. Additionally written submissions were made on 01.12.2011. On 26.12.2011, petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- for the aforesaid assessment period under protest. Likewise, a further amount of Rs.20,00,000/- was deposited by the petitioner under protest on 31.01.2012. Both the amounts were deposited by the petitioner by way of cheques, which were encashed by respondent No.2.

8. Though respondent No.2 issued final notice of hearing on 24.03.2012, no order of revision was passed by respondent No.2 thereafter. In the meanwhile, petitioner submitted application dated 21.06.2017 before the 2nd respondent stating that following the order passed by this Court, the initial order of revision dated 29.07.2011 was set aside whereafter no fresh order of revision was passed. Since the limitation period of three years provided under Section 37 of the VAT Act had expired, petitioner sought for refund of the amount of Rs.40,00,000/- as paid by it. This was reiterated by subsequent applications dated 21.07.2017 and 08.11.2021.

9. As there was no response, present writ petition has been filed seeking the reliefs as indicated above. Notice in this case was issued on 27.01.2022.

10. When the Court put a query to Mr. Raji Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents as to whether respondents would like to file counter affidavit, he submits that in view of the admitted facts, filing of counter affidavit may not be necessary. In this regard, he submits that he has written instructions of the respondents.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that following the order passed by this Court dated 30.08.2011, the revisional order dated 29.07.2011 no longer exist as the same has been set aside. Though this Court had remanded the matter back to the revisional authority for passing of fresh order, no such order of revision has been passed till date. This would mean that the initial order of assessment dated 08.06.2009 would hold the field. Adverting to Section 37 of the VAT Act, he submits that the limitation for p