IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO W.P.No.25909, 26177, 26187, 28530, 28539 &

28683 OF 2024

01.12.2025 W.P.No.25909 of 2024:

Between:

M/s Devi Enterprises …Petitioner A N D The Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Malkajgiri III, Circle Malkajgiri Division, Hyderabad ,Telangana and two others …Respondents COMMON ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr. Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for the State Tax for the respondents.

Perused the record.

2. These are six writ petitions where the challenge is to the order of assessment passed in Form 305 in three writ petitions and order of penalty in Form No.203 in other three writ petitions. The assessment orders in three writ petitions are dated 04.07.2020 and the orders of penalty in the other three writ petitions are dated

27.08.2021.

3. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had questioned the impugned orders of assessment as also the orders of penalty on the ground of the same being barred by limitation under the statute. Referring to Section 21(4) of the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005, the learned counsel contended that the period of limitation for passing of the orders was four years and in all cases, the period of assessment as also the order penalty have been passed admittedly beyond the period of four years and. therefore, according to the petitioner, he has approached the writ Court questioning the very issuance of the orders under challenge on the ground of beyond jurisdiction so far as the authorities are concerned.

4. The learned State Counsel on the previous date of hearing was directed to seek instructions. Today, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the State Tax submits that upon instructions, the officer concerned has accepted the fact that in all these six writ petitions, the three orders of assessment under challenge in three writ petitions are dated 04.07.2020 and the three orders of penalty in the other three writ petitions are one which have been passed on 27.08.2021, all of which are admittedly beyond the period of four years. The State Counsel submits that perhaps the officers concerned were under the impression that since the provisions of the Telangana VAT Act were amended vide Act 26 of 2017 and, therefore, under the said notion, the authorities seem to have passed the said order. However, the said amendment granting extension of the period of limitation from four years to six years was already subjected to challenge in the case of M/s SRI SRI ENGINEERING WORKS vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (CT), W.P.No.7893 of 2020 and batch, dated 05.07.2022. The High Court had in fact allowed the appeal and had struck down the amendment of extension of

limitation from four years to six years, holding it to be ultra vires. The striking down of the said amendment by the High Court has also been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the orders under challenge in these six writ petitions have to be declared to be one which have been passed beyond the prescribed statutory period of limitation of four years and thus, the writ petitions deserves to be allowed.

5. Given the aforesaid admitted factual matrix and also the fact that the amendment brought in by the State Government so far as extending the period of limitation from four years to six years having been held to be ultra vires, we have no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that all the orders under challenge in this batch of six writ petitions i.e., the order of assessment dated 04.07.2020 in W.P.Nos.26187, 25909 & 26177 of 2024 being barred by limitation, the writ petitions deserves to be and are accordingly allowed. The assessment orders in these three writ petitions accordingly stand quashed. Likewise, the ord