THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO W.P.No.23749 OF 2025 ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr.Tejprakash Toshniwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax for the respondents. Perused the record.

2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the revisional authority on 20.03.2025 (Annexure P-6).

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the facts of the case submits that the original order of assessment was one which was passed on 22.03.2019 (Annexure P-1). In view of the provisions of Section 32(3) of the Telangana State Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’), the period of limitation for the revisional authority to revise the order passed by the Assessing Officer is four years. Accordingly, the period of four years was coming to an end on 21.03.2023.

4. However, in the instant case, according to the petitioner, beyond the period of four years i.e., after 21.03.2023, the revisional authority issued a show cause notice seeking explanation as to why the assessment order dated 22.03.2019 be not revised vide show cause notice dated 25.06.2024 (Annexure P-2). It on this show cause notice that the impugned revisional order has been passed on

20.03.2025, which is under challenge.

5. The primary challenge to the impugned order is that the impugned order is barred by limitation under the provisions of Section 32(3) of the Act. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue involved in the instant case stands squarely covered by numerous decisions of this High Court, the lead petition being W.P.No.7893 of 2020 in the case of Sri Sri Engineering Works & Others vs. Deputy Commissioner (CT) & Others wherein in a batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this High Court had struck down the amendment brought to the said Act, extending the period of limitation from 4 years to 6 years. Following which many writ petitions subsequently filed also stood allowed. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for the present writ petition to be decided in terms of the aforesaid decisions rendered by this High Court.

6. However, the learned Special Government Pleader for the State Tax, opposing the petition on the ground of limitation raised by the petitioner, contended that the respondents herein would get an advantage pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had ordered for exclusion of the COVID period for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. The learned Special Government Pleader referred to the order dated 10.01.2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 so far as the issue of extension of period of limitation is concerned. According to the petitioner, in Clause IV of paragraph 5, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had ordered for the exclusion of the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 for the purpose of computing the period of limitation prescribed under the various special laws viz., Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other special laws. Relying upon the said clause, the learned Special Government Pleader contended that in the instant case also since the original assessment order was one which was passed on 22.03.2019, the period of limitation between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022, that is for a period of approximately two years has to be excluded for the purpose of computing the four years of limitation available with the revisional authority under Section 34(3) of the Act and prayed this Court to take a liberal interpretation to the said order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding the aspect of limitation.

7. For better understanding of the issue,