SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 5980

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J, UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
M/s. Sri Raghavendra Constructions – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP/27866/2021



THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN And THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION Nos.27866 of 2021 & 11006 of 2022

COMMON ORDER:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

This order will dispose of both W.P.Nos.27866 of 2021 and

11006 of 2022.

2 We have heard Mr. D.Srinivas, learned senior counsel on behalf of M/s. Pillix Law Firm for the petitioner and Mr. K.Raji Reddy, learned senior standing counsel, Commercial Taxes, for the respondent.

3 In W.P.No.27866 of 2021, the prayer made is to declare the action of the second respondent i.e. Commercial Tax Officer, Bhongir Circle, Bhongir, in issuing the urgent payment notice dated 2007.2019 as illegal and consequently to set aside the same.

4 Petitioner in W.P.No.11006 of 2022 seeks a declaration that action of the second respondent in issuing garnishee notices dated 24.02.2022 to the fourth respondent i.e. Canara Bank, Malakpet Branch, Malakpet, Hyderabad and to others as illegal and consequently to set aside the same.

5 According to the petitioner it is a special class civil contractor registered with the Government of Telangana. It is carrying on the business of execution of civil work relating to construction of roads etc. Petitioner is a registered dealer with respondent No.2 under the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (TVAT Act) as well as under the Goods and Services Tax (GST).

6 It is stated that for the assessment periods from the year 2014 till the year 2017, petitioner had filed monthly returns in Form VAT 200 by duly attaching Form VAT 501 along with certification of tax collection at source. It is stated that petitioner had opted for composition of tax and therefore filed applications under Form VAT 250 on monthly basis covering the aforesaid assessment periods along with the returns filed under Form VAT 200.

7 According to the petitioner it was surprised when it received notice dated 20.07.2019. It was an urgent payment notice issued by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 stated that assessments under the VAT Act was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Nalgonda Division, Nalgonda as per assessment order Nos.35305, 35309 and 35310, all dated 02.07.2019, following which a total amount of Rs.6,52,46,001-00 was outstanding against the petitioner. Petitioner was called upon to make the payment within seven days of receipt of the said notice. The urgent payment notice dated

20.07.2019 reads as under:

GOVERNMENT OF TELANGANA COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT Office of the Commercial Tax Officer, Bhongir Circle, Bhongir.

TIN.36122086628 Dated: 20.07.2019 URGENT PAYMENT NOTICE Please take notice that according to this office records the VAT assessment was conducted by Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Nalgonda Division, Nalgaonda as per A.O. No.35305, 35309, 35310, dated 02.07.2019 following the arrears are outstanding against you.

Sl.No. PERIOD VAT AUDIT TAX PENALTY TOTAL

1. 2014-15 Rs.1,40,16,511-00 Rs.1,40,16,511-00 2. 2015-16 Rs.3,18,28,919-00 Rs.3,18,28,919-00 3. 2016-17 Rs.1,94,00,571-00 Rs.1,94,00,571-00 Total Rs.6,52,46,001-00 Therefore, you are directed to pay the same within (7) days from the date of receipt of this notice. If the arrears have already been paid, please furnish the documentary evidence failing which the arrears will be recovered under Revenue Recovery Act as if were an arrear of land revenue, besides, this action will be initiated for imposition of penal interest under Section 16 (3) of APGST Act 1957 and Section 22 (2) of TGVAT Act 2005.

Sd/-

COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER BHONGIR CIRCLE, BHONGIR

8 It is stated that upon receipt of the said notice, petitioner had approached respondent No.2 with necessary documents evidencing payment of tax for the said period. Petitioner contended that it did not receive pre-assessment notices as contemplated under Rule 64 of the Telangana Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (TVAT Rules). Even the assessment orders were not served upon the petitioner. Besides, it is contended that during the entire assessment period from the year

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top