M/s.Sunshakti Solar Power Projects Private Limited v. 1. The State of Telanqana

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.GOVIND REDDY, REP. FOR SRIM.P.K.ADITYA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPL. GP FOR STATE TAX WRIT PETITION NO: 26403OF 2023 Between: M/s.Suraj Kiran Renewable Resources Private Limited , H.No.'-21-227-5, Ist Floor, Plot No.54, Road No.9, Sri Venkateshwara Nagar Colony, West Venkatapuram, Secunderabad - 500 010. State of Telangana Re[. by its Authorised Signatory Mr.Venkata Raja Bapatla .,.PETITIONER AND 1 Tie. _State of Telangana, Rep. by its principat Secretary Revenue (CT)Department Telangana Secretariat Hyderabad.

2. The Additional Commissioner, Revenue (CT) Telangana, Hyderabad. Department, Commissioner

3. The Appellate .loint Commissioner Hyderabad. (ST), Hyderabad Rrlral Division,

4. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Malkajgiri Circte-ll, Hvderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue- a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Wr.t or Order or Direction declaring the action of the respondents in excersing the revisional jurisdiction by serving revision show cause notice through proceedings ccrs Ref No Llll(2)1110-212021 Dated 31-8-2023 as arbitrary, contrary to law, unco nstitutional coupled with ulterior motive. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High Court ma'y be pleased to stay the proceedings CCTs Ref No Llll(2)/1 10-212O2'l Dated 31-8-2023 labelled as revision show cause notice forthwith pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.GOVIND REDDY, REP. FOR SRI M.P.K.ADITYA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPL. GP FOR STATE TAX WRIT PETITION NO: 26406 OF 2023 Between: M/s.Suraj Kiran Solar Technologies Private Limited, Plot No.54, Road No.9, Sri Venkateshwara Nagar Colony, West Venkatapuram, Secunderabad - 500 010. State of Telangana Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Mr.Venkata Raja Bapatla ...PETITIONER AND

4. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its principal Secretary Revenue (CT) Department Telangana Secretariat Hyderabad. The Additional Commissioner,. Revenue (CT) Department, Commissioner Telangana, Hyderabad. The Appellate Joint Commissioner (ST), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderaba. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Malkajgiri Circle-lll, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction declaring the action of the respondents in excersing the revisional jurisdiction by serving revision Show cause notice through proceedings CCTs Ref No Llll(2)1110-112021 Dated 31-8-2023 as arbitrary, contrary to law, unconstitutional coupled with ulterior motive. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumr;tances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the proceedings CCTs Ref No Llll(2)/1 10-112021 Dated 31-8-2023 labelled as revision show cause notice forthwith pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.GOVIND REDDY, REP. FOR SRI M.P.K.ADITYA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPL. GP FOR STATE TAX WRIT PETITION NO: 26473OF 2023 Between: M/s.Dinakar Technologies Private Limited, H.No.1-21-227-5, '1st Floor, Plot No.54, Road No.9, Sri Venkateshwara Nagar Colony, West '/enkatapuram, Secunderabad - 500 010. State of Telangana Rep. by its Authorisgd Signatory Mr.Venkata Raja Bapatla .PETITIONER AND

1. The State Of Telangana, Rep. by its principal Secretary Revenue (CT)Department Telangana Secretariat Hyderabad.

2. The Additional Commissioner, Revenue (CT) Department, Commissioner Telangana, Hyderabad.

3. The Appellate Joint Commissioner (ST), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad.

4. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Malkajgiri Circle-ll, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High t.)ourt may be pleased to issue a Wril of Mandamus or any other appropriate W'it or Order or Direction declaring the action of the respondents in excersing the revisional jurisdiction by serving revision Show cause notice through proceedings CCTs Ref No Llll(2)1110-312021 Dated 31-8-2023 as arbitrary, contrary to law, unconstitutional coupled with ulterior mo.tive. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 stay the proceedings ccTs Ref No Llll(2)/1 10-312021 Dated 31-8-2023 labelled as revision show cause notice forthwith pending disposal of the writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.GOVIND REDDY' REP. FOR SRI M.P.K.ADITYA Counsel for the Respondentsi SRI SWAROOP OORILLA' SPL. GP FOR STATE TAX The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER (;\ THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION Nos.26395, 26403,26406 and26473 of 2ol23 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice) Regard being, had to the similitude of the questionr; involved, on the joint reqtrest, these matters are alalogousiy heard and decided by this cotnmon order.

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

3. The petitioner is a dealer engaged in the business; of setting up of solar porver generating systems to produce eiectricity through variety c,{ equipments like cables, electrical sv'itch gears etc., ald 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.Oi .2O2O was passed levying tax on import turn over notified goods. Aggrieved, the petitioner prel'erred al appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was decidt:r-L on 18.09.2020. The Appellate Authority after 2 HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J W.P.Nos.26395 2023 & batch relying on various circulars issued by the Government grarlted 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 verit5r the claims of the appellant with reference to the material already available on record or that would be produced by the appeilant 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 disouted turnover of Rs. 179,57, 52.4O8-0O so far it relates to the soods imported from the outside the country and the appe al thereon remanded." (Emphasis Supplied)

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned revisional show-cause notice dated 37.08.2023 carne 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 frled 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 \ --. \ (' J H ACi ( SP,J) & RY,J W.P.Nos.26195 .1023_& batch considered various binding executive instructions/ circul;rrs issued by the State Goverrtment. After elaborate discussion and analysis, the Appellate Authority rightly came to hold that imported goods cannot be subjected to tax. It is submitted that uno.er S:iection 32 of the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2OO5 (1/AT Act'), the Revisional Authontv is competent to revise, modify or set aside the appellate order. The said exercise should not be done ir a cryptic manner. Since the Revisional Authority has relie<l or the very same Supreme (lourt judgment which was considere,d by the Appellate Authorilr,, the petitioners cannot put forth an-z defence. The petitioners catrnot rely on the binding circular:; of the State Government on v,'hich relialce was placed by ':he Appellate Authority. In other words, since proposed notices, arr.: founded upon the judgm cnt of Supreme Court, the petitir:,ners are defenceless ancl nc, useful purpose would be served in c,ompelling the petitioners to lile reply to the said proposed revisiorea-l show- cause notice.

7. Learned cotursel for the petitioners by placing rcliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala Stater submits ' 2ooo (2) scc 7 l8 4 I]ACJ (SP,J) & RY,J W.P.Nos.26i95 2021 & barch ') that show-camse 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 Bench of this Court in M/s. Nice Enterprisers v The Deputy Commissioner2 wherein interference was made against the show-cause notice and liberty was reserved to the Revenue to issue a fresh show-cause notice. For these cumulative reasons, it is urged that this Court may interfere in the show- cause notice itself. Contentions of the respondents:

8. Per corutra, Sri Swaroop Orilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, submits that the scope of interference against show-cause notice is very limited. Hear,y reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouses. For the same proposition, he placed reliance on the order of Division Bench of this Court in GMR Pochanpalli Expressways Limited v. Additional Director, ' w.p.No-20080 of 2024. datedio.oi.2024 t IZOO+; 3 Supreme Court Cases 440 )-S=t I I 7 5 & RY,J W.P.Nos.26l]95 2023 & batch T{ACJ 'SP,J) Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Hyderabad' Zonal Unita.

9. No other poirrl is pressed.

10. We have heard the parties at length and peruse,l thr: record. Findinss: 1 1 . Before dealin g with rival contentions, it is ap posite to consider the statrrtory provision i.e., Section 32(1t of VAT Act reads thus: "Section 32: Revision by Commissioner and other prescribed authorities: (1) The Commissioner may suo motu call for and erxamine the record of any order passed or proceeding recorded by any authority, ofi-rcer or person subordinate to him, un,:ler the provisions ol the Act including sub-section (2) zind if such order or proc'eeding recorded is prejudicial to the interests of revenue, mal make such enquiry, or cause such enquiry to be made and sr rlrject to the provisions of the Act _1nay initiate proceedinqs to revise, modify or set aside such order or d may pass such order in reference the reto as proceedinq a he thinks fit n (Emphasis Srrpplied)

12. A plain rea<ling of this provision makes it clear that the Revisional Authorit-v is competent to initiate proceedings to revise, modify or set asidc' the order. Pertinently, the learned cr:,unsel for o w-P.No.16266 0f2021. darrc 08.I0.2024 6 HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J W.P.Nos.26395 2023 & batch .) the petitioners has not assailed the show-cause notices on the ground of competence. The provision in no uncertain terms makes it clear that the Revisional Authority is indeed competent to take a different view from the view taken by the Appellate Authority

13. We find substance in the argument of learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax that scope of interference at the stage of show-cause notice is very limited. The Apex Court has drawn curtains on this issue in the case of Mohd.Ghulam Ghouse (supra) and opined thus: '5. This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show-cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parLies. Unless. the Hish Court is satished that the show- cause notice was totallv non est in .the eye of law for absolute want of iurisdiction of the authoriW to even investieate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere askinq and as a matter of routine , and the writ petitioner should invariablv be directed to respond to the show-cause notice and take all stands hiehlishted in the writ petition. Vlhether the show-cause notice was founded on anv legal Dremises is a iurisdictional issue which can even be ursed by the recioient of the notice and such issues also can be adiudicated bv the authoritv issuinq the verv notice initiallv. before the assrieved could approach the Court. Further, when the Court passes an interim order it should be careful to see that the statutory functionaries specially and specifically constituted for the purpose are not denuded of powers and authority to initially decide the matter and ensure that ultimate relief which may or may not be hnally 7 7 H;\CJ ('iP,J) & RY,J W.P.Nos.26395 Zrt23 & batch granted in thr: writ petition is not accorded to the writ [etitioner even i]t the threshold by the interim protectioll not granted." (EmPhasis rSuPPlied)

14. The highlighted portion of this paragraph makes it r:lear that even if lega1 premise of jurisdictional issue is lacking a:i per the petitioners in the show-cause notices, they may file re'ply ald raise that objection. wt: are unable to persuade ourselves with the line of argument of L:arned counsel for the petitioners that since learned Revisional .A.uthority has based its notice on the Supreme Court judgment, they cannot have any defence wtrile Frling the reply. If in the oprnion of the petitioners, the said Strpreme Court judgment is either not applicable or distinguisha'ble, the petitioners can sa) so in their reply. The show-cause notice is tentative in nature, which can be seen from the last parra.graph of the notice itself. Nothing prevents the petitioners to rely on the circulars which u't:re issued by the State Governmenl., if such circulars are in support of the petitioners' claim. In thaL event, it will be the duty of the Revisional Authority to considt:r all the objections taken by the petitioners in their reply.

15. The necessary ingredients on which interferenc<: can be made at the stage of show-cause notice are absent in the present 8 HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J W.P.Nos.26395 2023 &. ba,tch o cases. At the cost of repetition, the question of competence/jurisdiction is not involved in the present matters. Whether the appellate order discloses necessary ingredients to show that it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue or not can also be raised while filing objection/ response to the show-catrse notice. We say so, in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohd.Ghulam Ghouse (supra).

16. So far the judgment of this Court in M/s. Nice Enterprisers (supra) is concerned, suffice it to say that in the show-cause notice in that case, there was no factual backdrop and no factual details and the entire show-cause notice was issued by reproducing Section 29(2) (e) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2O17. In this peculiar backdrop, where necessary ingredients for a vatid show-cg.use notice were missing, this Court interfered with the show-cause notice, set it aside and gave liberty to the Revenue to issue a proper show-cause notice. The said judgment cannot be stretched and pressed into serrrice in the present cases, where revisional notice is not sketchy or cryptic.

17. As analyzed above, the impugrred show-cause notices cannot be interfered with. Resultantly, interference is declined' The \tr- t l 7 9 IIACJ (SP,J) & RY,J W.P.Nos.2ti395 2021 & batch petitioners mal/ file their reply to the show-cause nol.ices by taking all possible grorrnds within three weeks from today. The Competent Authority shall consider the reply arLd c.ecide the matters, in accordance with law, expeditiously.

18. With the a-foresaid and without expressing aly c,pinion on the merits, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. Nc order as to costs. Miscellaneorrs petitions pending, if any, shall stald closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.T.TIRUMALA DEVI / DEPUWREdISTRAR / \ To, \ SECTION OFFICER 1 . The Principat Secretary, Revenue (CT) Department, Telangana 2. The Additional Commissioner, Revenue (CT) Department, rlommissioner Secretariat Hydera bad, St5te of ieririg:anll'' Telangana, Hycjerabad. Joint Commissioner, (sr), Hvderabad Rurat Division, ' IlS"apbB:llate 4. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Malkajgiri Ci.:le_ll. Hyderabad. 5. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Malkajgiri Circle_llt, Hyderabad. 6. One CC to SRt M.P.K.ADITYA, Advocate tOpUCl 7. Two CCs to SpL Gp FOR. STATE TAX, High Court for the State of ''E r'v\' I rrv'I 8. Two CD Copies Telangana at Hvderabad tOUn BSR LS s HIGH COURT DATED: 1610412025 I I /.' / .2 ( l ,.\ _) ta+"| ',\ s: E ;1 tft' 1l. ,y ,// ,/ COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.26395, 26403,2G406 and 26413 ot 2023 DISPOSING OF ALL THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT COSTS O-fl'9 %rf