The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A'V'A' Siva Kartikeya'representing Ms' Nafisa Counsel for the Respondent: Sri T. Chaitanya Kiran , Assistant Govt. Pleader ,"p"""nting Special Gbvernment Pleader for State Tax l i i I I TAX REvtsloN CASE NO:2 OF 2025 Tax Revision Under section 22 (1) ( see Rure 40 ) of the Terangana Generar sares Tax Act, 1952 neao,wi*r-sectiiri sa"jir "; section B0 0f the Teranqana Value Added Tax Act 2005 to revise the orde; ;r;; 04_12-2023 in T.A No. 8_B of 2022 0n the fire of the Terangana v"rre Aoo"o-ia"xrnpperate Tribunar, Hyderabad. Between: M/s. UPS SCS lndia private Limited, Jayalaxmi Towers, Nagar, Begumpet. Hyderabad - 500016 1 - 1 1 -251 I 1 9t A, prakash AND ...PETITIONER The state of rerangana, Represented by its state Representative, Before the rerangana VAT Appeilate Tiibunat, Hya6;;rd * ''*' ...RESPONDENT counser for the petitioner: sri A.v.A. siva Kartikeya representing Ms. Nafisa counser for the Respondent:.sri r. chaitanya Kiran , Assistant Govt. preader representing Speciat Governmenr pleaoe. toi bLi"-ir.i. The Court made the foltowing COMMON ORDER: TTIE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. CHALAPATHI RAO TAX REVISION CASE Nos.ll OF 2024 &2 0F 2025 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counsei representing Ms. Nafisa, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr' T. Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Speciat Government Pleadel for State Tax, appearing for the respondent. Perused the record.

2. The instant appeals have been filed assailing the order dated

04.12.2023 passed in T.A.No.44 of 2022 and the order dated

04.12.2023 passed in T.A.No.88 of 2022 by the Telangana Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, (for short, 'the Tribunal'), respectively.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal Appeals have been preferred before the Tribunal against the orders dated 22.12.2021 passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad, whereby, the tax and penalty was levied against the petitionei. Leamed counsel further l i I i i I I i I I i 2 submits that on account of certain unavoidable circumstances, the appeals wellt uffepresented for three occasions and in the process when the cases were taken up by the Tribunal on the third occasion, on the non-representation by the petitioner, the appeals stood dismissed for want of prosecution. Hence, the present tax revision cases have been filed. 4, Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the non-represertation of the petitioner when the cases were taken up by the Tribunal was neither deliberate nor intentional but because of a bonafide reason and that the petitioner is still very serious in contesting the case and presses for the matter to be remitted back to the Tribunal so that the appeals could be decided on its own merits, in accordance with law. He fuither submits that the petitioners ioo have a strong case so far as the finding arrived at by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner is concemed and therefore, the petitioner should not be rendered remediless after the appeals being dismissed for default.

5. Learned Assistant Government pleader representing leamed Special Government pleader for State, on the other hand, opposed 3 the tax revision cases on the ground that the main pleading of the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal would go to show that the petitioner is not diligent enough in contesting the cases and that after fiting of the appeals, the appeals went unrepresented on all the dates when it was taken up by the Tribunal and therefore' the Tribunal has no other option but to dismiss the appeals for default, which therefore does not warrant any interference by this Court' Moreover, no plausible explanation has been given by the petitioner in not representing before the Tribunal on the dates when the matters were taken up for hearing, on which ground also' the tax revision cases deserves to be rejected.

6. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of the record, particularly taking into consideration of the fact that in the event if the petitioner is not permitted to contest the appeals on merit, they would be rendered remediless against the orders passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, which would lead to a substantial detriment for the petitioner' Even otherwise,consideringthefactthattherewerebonafidereasonsfor the petitioner for not putting up their appearance before the 4 Tribunal on u,hich dates the matters were taken up, the petitioner should not suffer on account of any situation that the counsel engaged b1 the petitioner before the Tribunal had been facing during thos..days.

7. Given the said facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner may be given another chance to defend the case on merits, subject to imposing costs.

8. Accordingly, we allow the instant tax revision cases and the impugncd order-s dated 04.12.2023 passed by the TribLrnal in 1'.A.No.44 of 2022 and T.A.No.gg of 2022, are set aside/quashed, subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs.25,000/_ each in two tax revision cases in t'avour of the Telangana State Legat Services Authority, q ithin a period of two (02) weeks from today. Upon submission of the receipt of deposit of costs in favour of the Telangana State Legal Services Authority, T.A.No.44l20 22 and, T.A.No.88/2022 would stand restored before the T.ribunal on its original position. Further, the Tribunal is directed to take up the matters and decide the same on its owrr merits, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. 5 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any' shall stand closed. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO INT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// TION OFFICER To 1. The Telangana Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The Telangana State Legal Services Authority, High Court Buildings, High I I Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

3. One CC to Ms. NAFISA, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies kul/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:13/08/2025 -.-i:--: -'"'.'.)-"l':' .,.'.;.r -" -: ----\ 5tr',' / ,:l j ...) 1,. \\ 2', 21 stP a6 s rCr,i.'!r'-a ===;/ COMMON ORDER TREVC.Nos.11 ot 2024 & 2 ot 2O2S ALLOWD,IG THE BOTII TAX REVISION CASES WITHOLJT COSTS t"lI