THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION Nos.26395, 26403, 26406 and 26473 of 2023 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice)

Regard being had to the similitude of the questions involved, on the joint request, these matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order.

2. In this batch of petitions, the subject matter of challenge is revisional show-cause notices. The facts are taken from W.P.No.26395 of 2023.

3. The petitioner is a dealer engaged in the business of setting up of solar power generating systems to produce electricity through variety of equipments like cables, electrical switch gears etc., and certain items were imported.

4. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice and in turn, reply was filed. The assessment order dated 22.01.2020 was passed levying tax on import turn over notified goods. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was decided on 18.09.2020. The Appellate Authority after relying on various circulars issued by the Government granted relief to the petitioner by holding thus:

“For the facts and reasons discussed above, I feel it just and proper to remit the matter back to the Assessing Authority, who shall verity the claims of the appellant with reference to the material already available on record or that would be produced by the appellant and pass orders afresh in accordance with the Government Memo as discussed above, after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity to present their case. With this direction, the impugned order is set- aside on the disputed turnover of Rs.179,57,52,408-00 so far it relates to the goods imported from the outside the country and the appeal thereon remanded.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned revisional show-cause notice dated 31.08.2023 came as a blot from blue to the petitioner, whereby based on the judgment of the Supreme Court, the Revisional Authority intends to revise the order of the Appellate Authority. Against the similar revisional orders these batch of petitions are filed.

Contention of the petitioners:

6. Sri M. Govind Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that order of assessing officer was based on the judgment of the Supreme Court. Against which, the petitioners preferred appeals. In the said appeals, not only the judgment of Supreme Court was considered, but the learned Appellate Authority also considered various binding executive instructions/circulars issued by the State Government. After elaborate discussion and analysis, the Appellate Authority rightly came to hold that imported goods cannot be subjected to tax. It is submitted that under Section 32 of the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (‘VAT Act’), the Revisional Authority is competent to revise, modify or set aside the appellate order. The said exercise should not be done in a cryptic manner. Since the Revisional Authority has relied on the very same Supreme Court judgment which was considered by the Appellate Authority, the petitioners cannot put forth any defence. The petitioners cannot rely on the binding circulars of the State Government on which reliance was placed by the Appellate Authority. In other words, since proposed notices are founded upon the judgment of Supreme Court, the petitioners are defenceless and no useful purpose would be served in compelling the petitioners to file reply to the said proposed revisional show-

cause notice.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala State, 2000 (2) SCC 718 submits

that show-cause notice does not spell out with accuracy and precision as to how the order of the Appellate Authority is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. For this reason also, interference is warranted. Lastly, he placed reliance on the order passed by Division B