High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or orders or Direction declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in passing suo Motu Revision Proceedings dated 02111t2024 served on the petitioner on0310112125, for the tax period 201i-16, under CST Act, 1956 without considering the objections of the petitioner dated 21t12t2023 filed on 2211212023, as arbitrary, contrary to law, without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of Natural Justice and Rule of Law, and consequen y set aside the suo Motu Revision Proceedings of the Pt Respondent dated 02111t2024 served on the Petitioner on 031011202s for the tax period 201s-16 under the cST Act,i956 as null and void. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Stay of all further Proceedings in pursuance of the Orders of the 2nd Respondent dated 05.1 1 .2024, served on the Petitioner on 03.01 .2025, for the tax period 2015- 16 under the CST Act '1856, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, as otherwise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, Special Govt Pleader for State Tax W.P.NO: 4279 OF 2025 Between: M/s. Oasis Poly Profile Private Limited, PIot No. 135,2nd Floor, Oatib Tower lX, Prasanthi Nagar, IDA Kukatpally, Hyderabad 500 O72. State of Telangana.. Rep. by its Managing Director Mr.Ch.Sita Rama Raju AND ...PETITIONER

1. The Joint Commissioner (ST), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad. 2. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Hydemagar 1 Circle, Hyderabad Rural

3. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT) Division Hyderabad. Department' Hyderabad ...RE''.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Orders or Direction declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in passing Suo Motu Revision Proceedings daled 02.11.2024 served on the Petitioner on 03.01.2025, for the tax period 2016-1 7, under CST Act, 1956 without considering the objections of the Petitioner dated 21 .12.2023 filed on 22.12.2023, as arbitrary, contrary to law, without jurisdiction and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Rule of Law, and consequently set aside the Suo Motu Revision Proceedings of the 1st Respondent daled 02.11 .2024 served on the Petitioner on 03.0'l .2025 for the tax period 2016-17 under the CST Act,1956 and also passed of revision order after limitation period prescribed under sub-section 32(3) of the T VAT Act, 2005 and the same is antedated to save limitations, hence the Proceedings of the 1st Respondent, as null and void. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Stay of all further Proceedings in pursuance of the Orders of the 2' Respondent dated 05.11.2024, served on the Petitioner on 03.01.2025, for the tax period 2016- 17 under the CST Act 1956, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, as otherwise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, Speciat Govt Pteader for State Tax ., The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION Nos.4273 AND 4279 of 2o25 COMMON ORDER (Per th" Hon'ble ttrc Acting Chief Justice Sujog paul): Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government pleader for State Tax, lor the respondents. 2 Regard being had to the similitude of the questions involved, these matters rvere analogously heard.

3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties reached to a consensus. It is agreed that when the petitioner was put to pre-revision show cause notices, it filed reply and took a specific objection which reads thus: "lt is further humbly submitted that against the Audit Assessment proceedings dated 30.04.2019, for the ta-x period December 2014 to J:urrre 2OlT under the TVAT Act, 2005 passed by the Assessing Authority was subject to Suo-Motu Revision by the then Joint Commissioner (ST), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad vide proceedings dated 28.04.2023, on the same issue, we have filed T.A.No.31 of 2023 on the file of the Hon'ble VAT Appellate Tribunal and the same is pending adjudication. When the same issue pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Tribunal, there is a specific bar under Sub Se<;tion (5) of Section 32 of the TVAT Act, 2005 read u'ith Section 9(2) of the CST Act, 1956, which reads as foliows: "it shall be lawful for the Commissioner to deler 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." , I 2 It is agreed that this objection of the petitioner which relates to the jurisdiction/competent authority is not dealt with in the impugned orders dated 02.11.2024 and therefore, the said order may be set aside and the revisional authority may be directed to rehear the petitioner and pass a fresh order by considering the said objection in accordance with law. 4 In view of consensus arrived at, both the impugned orders dated 02.11.2024 are set aside. The matters are restored in the file of revisional authority. The petitioner shall appea-r before the revisional authority on 03.03.2025 at 11:30 A.Mland for this purpose, no fresh notice r,r.iil be required to be issued. The revisional authority shal1 rehear the petitioner and pass fresh orders in accordance u,ith law.

5. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the cases. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.A.V.S. PRASAD NT REGISTRAR ASSIS U SECTION OFFICER The Joint Commissioner (ST), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Hydernagar -1 Circle, Hyderabad Rural Division Hvderabad. The Appeliate Joint Commissioner, (ST) Hyderabad Rural Division, Hvderabad. The Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT) Department, Hyderabad, State of Telanoana. one ct to sRl SHAIK JEELANI BASHA, Advocate IOPUC] One CC to SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, Special Govt Pleader for State Tax Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies \ \ To 1 2 2 4 5 b 7 PSK. HIGH COURT DATED:14102t2025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.4273 AND 42Tg of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS I I W ltiE s o3 * o( IO 1E r{B 2W a] sUEQ .lo, <r \Y,I \.* ^ \-'.,c