IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WP No.23289 of 2021 Date:24.02.2026 Between:

M/s.Plan-A Designtec Solutions Pvt.Ltd., Hyderabad.

… Petitioner And The Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Hyderabad and others.

…Respondents ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr.Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

2. The instant is the writ petition which has been filed assailing the order dated 16.01.2021 passed by the revisional authority. The revisional order dated 22.11.2016 was passed under Section 32 of the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short “the Act”). The impugned order has been challenged primarily on two grounds. Firstly, on the ground that the revisional authority at the first instance has been given authorization to the concerned authority for an auditing report could not have subsequently initiated proceedings calling for the revising of the original order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer (C.T.O.), dated 18.05.2017 after audit was done. The second ground of challenge was that the revisional authority could not have initiated the revisional proceedings in view of the specific bar that is envisaged under Section 32 (5) of the Act.

3. So far as the first ground is concerned, the undisputed fact is that the Commercial Tax Officer had originally passed the order on 22.11.2016 (Annexure P.4), whereby, it was found that the petitioner was eligible for refund of Rs.36,89,767/- for the period between February, 2013 to September, 2016. Subsequently, the revisional authority had ordered the audit of the petitioner’s assessment and authorization to this effect was issued on 14.02.2017 and there was another authorization issued on 30.03.2017 and also a direction for fresh assessment to be made. After which, the C.T.O. had passed a fresh order on 18.05.2017 and subsequently, the C.T.O reached to the conclusion that there seems to be an excess tax paid by the petitioner to a tune of Rs.39,05,968/- which the petitioner was entitled for the refund. It is this order which has been subjected to revision by the revisional authority.

4. The undisputed facts which is culled out from the proceedings that there is no challenge so far as the competence of the revisional authority is concerned. There is no dispute so far as the initiation of proceedings been drawn well within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 32 of the Act and there also does not seem to be any challenge so far as the merits of the findings given by the revisional authority, whereby, the quantum of amount found refundable to the petitioner stood reduced from Rs.39,05,968/- to Rs.9,85,983/-. In the absence of any challenge so far as the competence of the authority, the order been not barred by limitation and also there being no challenge to the findings arrived at by the revisional authority may be because of an earlier authorization having been issued, by itself could not be a ground, by which the powers of the revisional authority and competence gets seized. The said objection so raised by the petitioner is therefore not sustainable.

5. So far as the second ground is concerned i.e. objection raised under Section 32 (5) of the Act, it would be relevant at this juncture to reproduce the provision of Section 32 (5) of the Act for proper appreciation of the said ground. It reads thus:

“ It shall be lawful for the Commissioner to defer any proceeding under this section by the reason of the fact that an appeal or other proceeding is pending before the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court involving a question of law having a direct bearing on the order or proceeding in question.”

6. A plain reading of the aforesaid Section 32(5) of the Act clearly indicate that what is m