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 an apprppriate writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature ef writ of [vlandamus, declaring the impugned order dated 27.1i.2009 passed by the 1st respondent for the tax period 01/04/05 to 3jtO3l07 a9 illegal, unjustifigd and contrary to the provisions of law and violative of principle of natpral ju stice. I.A. N : 1 OF 2008 WPMP. NO: 37246 OF 2008 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 please'd to suspend the operation ofthe impugned order dated2T 11.2008 passed by the 1st respondent forthe tax period 01.04.2005 to 31.3.2007 during the pendency of the above writ petition Counsel for the [ret tioner: SRI B.SRINIVAS Counsel for tha tlespondents: SPL. SC FOR COMMERCTAL IAXES / GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made'ihe following: ORDER 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA Writ Petition No.28425 of 2OO8 ORDER: (per Hot.L'bLe Sn Jr,,stice T Vinod Kunar) ' Heard Iearned counsel lor the peLltloner, iearned Special Standing counser appearing rbr commcrci,r Taxes a,d pcruscd rhe record

2. The briefly srated case of the petitioner is that, it is a company, engaged in the manufacture and markeling of Neem basecl pesticrdes and is a registered dealer on the fi.le of the 2"d respondent; and.that it has been granted sale ta-x defcrment in terms of the industrial policy by the competen t authority.

3. It is the lurther case of the periLioner thac during the years 2005- 06 and 2006-07, pel.ilioner had atiected sare of various producLs manulactured by it and disckrsed the turnover ol such sales in thc rcturns filcd bc[orc rhr- 2' d responclcnt-authoriry.

4. It is also the case of the petitioner tha[ rn terms o[ the provisions of the VAT Act, 20OS as it is entitled to claim input tax crcdil in respect of goods purchased lrorrr VA.r.cJca]e r withi'r the staLe cll Andhra })radesh, anci used il Lhc nt:rnulhi:turc ol.its products; rhat it had lun-rished the dctails of such Lax paid purchascs in rhe mor th I,r, returns liled by it ancl claimecl dciermcn I of sales ta_x payabJe on its lin:l 1tr:t( l cL Llnd.er deferment of lax facih '1 ext':rde(l to Lt' whereby salt:s 'r r pa.\'aille oll its VA't' output tax is r-e:r et1 Is il'llcrest frec loan cx -.]1,:i( ( 1 o the petitioner-industry' It is Lhr' li L|the r case of the petilioner that on lL e b Ls'is of the 5. observatiori:, lrl:l: irL LI're course of VA'l audit' Lhe 'L I-(rsl)(l:1lt:nt had issued \\ Ilr t :- ) )\\ -c:rusc noticc, dL'30 09 2OOE ir: F i rl"t VA'l 30:il\ calling up,r I ll r' )e Lilioncr to submlL its u'rltten ob-iec[l rns I orlg u ith dor:nmenrr-r ..,. ( enCe rvithin (07) da1,s from the datc of rc'r elpt ol thcl said notice, tlrrr, t-Lle aforesaid notice though is rlr '30i1'r'1108 \\'as serveclon,hlttlitLcneronl0lt20Os;andtltarnr"c'ipl'r[the aforesatd tt. i, L i 't lrorm VAT 305A, the pelitic rlcr bv its lt-'Lter' clt 22 1O.r[r] )I I LcL soughL trme of 15 day's to fiLe l.itall(d ctrlections to rhe prolt,s:tr :sse ssmcnt for the La-x period 2OO5 il5 arLd :006-07' Pctitror.tt ' ltLrther contends that al the iLrst itls:: ncc' the 15 days tim: 1c

6. pelilloner [::r ' t-rg sought o bjectionsT e,',:p1rL'Lzl tion to the proposals made ie 1l1s s hou' cause notice, a;r: th': said request having been acce,led t,:) b u' Lhe 1 sI responden issued. r," :t -r sought lr,r r o3.1 l 20()lt ro o ffi: r :r a u t r rlit.1', even before expiry ol said 1:r davs t rle , it was ;r,r .:,'. d1.04.11.2008, claiming lhaL he 15 clal's Lime rrr I:r the cover ol letter, dr.22 10 20C8, s ovcr bv : n r srnce, no explanatio n / obj ec trons arc i:lt I irl orcle r )J-rlrortLrnit-vJ the pctilior-rer rr,'as ,:allcd u p lr-r to lile objections, in rhree days i.e., by 06.I 1.2008, lailing which the petitioner was informed thal necessary orders would be passed as deemed fit.

7. Petitioner lurther contends that the aibresaid notice, dt.04.1 1.2008 has bee n servecl on the petitioner only on 06. i 1.200g, Lhat too, even belore the expir_v of 15 davs time granted in response to the notice, dt.22.tO.2OO8 It is further contended by the petitioner in its stafl, it had addressed a letter dt. 10.1 L2008 to thc I -r rcspondcnt si:eJ<ing furtl_rer time ol (1S) clays to file its objectrons that due to the change

8. Petitioner further contends thaL on it liling the aforesaid letter sr:eking further exl.cnsion oI time of (15) days, Lhe respondent- au thorily neither rcjected nor relused to grant such time and since the 2"d respondent-authority had acceptecl the request made by the petitioner under the cover of letter, dt. 10.11.2008, it had approached the responden ts-au th oritic s on 22. I 1.2(JOg ancl attempted to submit the explanation/ objccrions, in Lhc oirice or thc 1", respondent. It is contended by the petitioner that as the staff of respondent were on pen-down strike from 22.lI.2OOg kt 26.11 .200g, the said objections were not received () It is the lurther case of rhe pelitior_rer thaL at an cariier point of trmc pursuanr to the noLicc dt. i g. 10.2007, rssued bv the l "r \ respondent, h I l)' titroner had submitted a detai rcl rel;1" eililg volun.ii.nous llll-:'l I't()n b1- r'vav of various annexLl:-cs r''t r' li'ilt:r' dt.21.lO 20( -'. r,i1rl'L \\'as dul1' acknorvledgecl b1' th-' I' le: ponclcnL on 23. iO.20t '/ rli(, ;is such, even though the explilt::rt-r rl ' rilection of the peritiorle ' i 1.2 I0'2008 $'as not received b1' tl t: c'llliril )-lhc 1st respondent, 'i'r: :-: :crr'l available u'ith the 1'1 rcspol c1e nt '': s all the .ri thc issues, r'vhich rvere srlblt'r'i I li'llL rr r)l LIle details ir-i ri:.::. sho$'-cause ;lr,:ir c it 30 09 2OO8; and thlls' []rc l'' i r,:sprndct-tt- authoritv r-'L qlt t I llave considcred tlle same tr r'lcr l:r: s Lnq Llle impugned asse sr:il r ' rt o rde r.

10. Pe titio ^,e r I authorities c lcl llr 1 the petition<:: c'll hor.r'cvcr cli,rilll I : was surprist:d 'o t VAT-305, c1t.2 r. i l l st responclr l' I l r r notice isstie:l r'. ' noL sLtbmi.: r'.lt , -' time to fil. 1l: resulting in tlt rrrrL rftner contends that u'hile L le resl cndents- re,:eive the explanation sought tc be srrb T itled bl' 22.ll.2OOA, on account of stril':e irr '-h:ir olfice' r,rvc passcd assessmcnt order, arlcl ]r ' 'l:litic.rni:r eceive the impugned order ol assessrncn ' it'i Form .2008, passed Lry the 1"t respon( cnt \"'l e -ellv the I i:rnfirmed the proposaLs madc i'' ii: i-' sl o\\ (l:tllse rr-rn VA'I'305A, on the ground ol titc pL:Li:irtlr:r dicl <;rlanation, despite having been qrat led sulf icient ol-Sections and documel.rlar] ''\ ici( ll 'e ' t.herebY' rcl o1' tax pa-r'abie in a sutn ol lls 2 ) '2( lO: l' ' 1 i. PetiLioner contends that imrnediate ly on receipl of the aforesaid order of assessment, it had addressed a Ictlcr d1.29.11 .2OOg, giving de tailed reasons, as to why the petiLioner could not submit ifs reply, dt.22.I1.2008, which was beyond the controi of the petitioner. and sought to withdraw the assessment order. t2 Petitioner further contends that as the respondents_authorities did not consider Lhe aforesaid requesl_ made by rhe petit.ioner to withdraw the assessment order, passecl by the lsr respondent_ authoril.y, without granting an opporlunlly of pcrsonal hearing to the petitioner, the said order is to be considcr-ed as having been passecl in violarion of principres of natural justice, ancl ls thus riable to be set aside, and it is lor the said reason, the petitioner has flled the present Writ PeLition I3. ln support of thc above contentions, reiiance rs placed on Sri Balaji f-lour Milrs u. commerciar rax officer-Il, chittoort, Dekars Fires & Securitg Sgstems put. Ltd, u. The Deputg Cornmissioner(CT)r, M/s. Vision Ventures p Limited,, S.R.Ncgar, Hgd.erabad u. StcLte o:f Ap., Reuenue Dept., Hgdera.bad and.2 otherst, M/s. ploLstopo.ck, Hgd. v. The Commercial Tax O;fficer, Hgd, and Anothef , N",tio,..,l Textite '1zorr1 +o vst tso 2 M^NU/AP 1128712011 3 order, dt lb.1,l.2022 rn Wp No.21798 ol2006 4 Order dt.31.10.2022 in Wp.No.14195 oi 2Oo7 .'l Corporation Lr:d. 't' Nareshkumar Badrikumor Jagad o:rd Ors'' Ja.grnittclr Si.it )ghagctt u' Dir' Health Seraices' Haragano: I t'!d Ors'6 and S.rolaih & Cc' u' The DePutg CommissiotTer(CT)7 ' '

14. Per rr-ttrt',.1. lr:lrlrecl -spccial Standrng CtlltuscL i'rr l(:rrrI1!l on behaLl ol rcsr: t ,i'.1's b] c1rar"'ing attention of lilis CotLr' 'o llrc orcler in Form V,C't :]l I r"ould contend that the requ('st 'rLlri:l br thc petitioner on I (J ' 1 l2OO8 for grant of time of 1 5 d ]vs h:is r'ot bee n accedecl to br- -llt luthority in its entirety and the ti:re 'r'lrs rostrictcd till I7. L 1.2OOi' l.r, rn:rking an e nclorsement lo Lhc r;tr'jr1 a-lt cli otl Lhe acknowledglnc'1l ssued to the petitioner and that rhc pstitioner suppressillg llLi rL. lresaid e ndorsement macle on thc olficr: cl lr- of the lettcr giver-r to i-ir I I-';rs liled the pre sent Writ [)elirrorr'

15. Learn:cl Sp'ccial Standing Counsel would r:onLeLrrL that in rcsponse L(r r- l:l I 'c1-Lesl of the petitioner' vide let:er (it' j( ' L 1 '2008' the Lime 521"i1 11 1r, erl granled to the petitioner to su!mi cx:rllnalton/ documents .r rL'. j1l 17'L12OO8' the petitioner c rLllrrt cl:iln ol it approachir-rtt llr,' 'espondents-authorities ot 22 1L'2O0-q ar'c scektng to sltbmit [:Lc il'I rt Ir-rartion, and the said explanatir tl /r ot:L'.rctlts t'toL being recti.c I ) 't]',c resl)ondents aulhoritic:s l'r r' LL rr i)[ t]cn n u ArR 2ot2 sc .5 t ntR zot3 sc lo,a ' order dt.oz.oB .c I ' "/t' \o 15176 of 2007 down strike ol the staff of. the 1 st responden L from 22.1 1 .2OOg Lo 26.).t.2008

16. Learned Special Standing Connsel rvould further contcnd Lhat the peiiLioner is only seeking to take aclvantage o1. the pen_down srrikc resortcd to by Lhe stafl ol thc Isr responclcnr Ollice during the said period to contend that it had sought to lile the explanation. 17. It is also co:ttencled by the lcarned Special Standing Counsel that if the petitioner, in fact, had approached the respondents au[horiries and sought to submit its explanatio n on 22.1 1.2oo8, as being claimed, and the same being refused to be received by the staff ol the I sr res pondent_oflice, nothii_tg preven[ed the pe LiLioner lrom sending thr: samc bl, regislered post on thc same cir the iollou,ing day, which in fact the pe[itioner did not do, and more so, the time granted for filing explanation having lapsed by 17.1 1.200g itself.

18. IL is also contended by the learned Speciai Standing Counsel that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order passecl by the 1st respondent on 27.II.2OOg, ar-rd having approached tl-re Deputy Commissroner ol rhe Drvrsto n on 29.1 l.2OOg, could not have waited lor a further period of ncarly one month for filing the present writ petition belore this Cour[ on 26,12.2OOg, r.r,hich rncidentaily is the iast date of Iimitation penod prescribed for liling an appeal under the i .l provislons ol r1-. . '1 [, and the said ground is invenler] fol llLe pttrpose of fihng of tlLt: 1 r( i' rt Wril Pctitror-r'

19. Learne:1 S1r: rial Standing Counsel wouid lllrt'rer con end thal even a perLLS:r c1 lLe lcrter d,L.22.11 2008, u'hich rhc I)ei tio'3'claims of har,rng sctril\'. o be liled on 22'1O'2OO8 cloes llot lli( vidc any- docttments itl r;1.t1 1 crt. ol its contentions to thc proposal:i rl: de in tl'ie $rith rerlarc Lo denial of shou, cause ttc,l ic: it'l Form VAT-305A i e input ta-x crerli:. c : 3mption of saies, in-eligible saies restriction o:r 'lL clijTerential tllrnover as per Profi ancl miscelk.n,rrII s. irLcome, for the petitioner to claim ci it I'raving submitted li r: -''r I il-ed documentar-t' evidence iu stti por c l' tr; r:laim & I-csr account undcr d ;-1erment,

20. Insoi,,t Ie r:li.Lim of the petrtioner of the f i respil trlcnt nol having :rut:r -,:- zlr i rtl to callse assessment, learned Spe cL'li S'tandrng Cournscl lvrr tl I r r L- ir'nci thart thc assessmcnL ordr::- lia: nol been chailenged lr,:1:,rL hrs CourI on the ground of t]rc separate a, t -h r ii ;r lir; n lor causlng audit and asrse isnl lll L : e-nd Lhat the assessrtcrt rrder having been passed bas':ci ln :tlmbined authorizati. -. ,r: z uilit and assessmenL. It is conrcr-rcl lcl t lrrL since, 1' lacking 'lLlt.lori no such plca ts I r,<ett, the petitioner cannot be allo'ved to : gLtate the saicl plea. 2f . We hr;rt ir { ll l note of Lhe respcctive conterlLicns llrlle 11 22 furthe rance of the I L2008, the said explanation Though on behalf of the petitioner it is contended that despite the show-cause notice in Form VAT rL trying to lile its objections to 3054, dt.30.09 2008 on 22 recelved by the staflof the 1sr respondent due to the pen down strike beru.een 22.IL2OOB to 26.11 .2008, it is to be noted firstlA, thaL thc impugned order of assessment records the time for iiling explanation/ob.jecttons to the shou, cause notice in lrrler, dr.lU. I l.2UOg, having been rcsrricred lu pe tl tione r canno

17.11.2008, thc t claim of it trying to file explanation by approaching the oflice ot thc l.I respondenL on 22.1 j.2OOg i.e., beyond the rime granted Lo it Seco,d1.ry, as rightly con tcr.rde d by Lhe lea.,red Special Standing Counsel noLhing prerrented thc petitioner from sending the aforesaid explanation by post either on the same day or the following dar,, when the same was refused to be received by the staff of the 1"r respondent. Further, a perusal of the alleged explanation, which the pe tr tioner claims it had sought to liie. with the respondenLs- authorities on 22. i 1.2008, would also shor,v that the con[ents of the saici explanation do not address the proposals, lor which the pLLrLrutter rs requrred to submit its explanatior.r undcr the show-cause notrce issued in Form VAT 3OSA 23, Tlius, rl-ris Court is .[ the view thar the ciaim ol the petitloner of it having sought time of 15 days by retter, dt. 10.1 r .2008, and having tried to file its objections on 22.tL2OOg, and the said explanation i l having been r,riL.i; ci to be receivccl b1' the ollice of llle fi rtlslrondent' in the consr:1e ri,r \.rc\^ ol this court. is on11, trying ,o t:Il(il lrivanlage of the si'.ttzt t,tlt existing betu'een the penod )2'IL" CO8 ancl 26.11.2AO8. anrl 'hus, cannot be accepted as a va'id jusf i rr:atron or defence.

24. Furti't:,t l ;s also ro be noLcd tllat thc pi titi('llrl1' o r-L bcing servecl rvitl't r,l c rrrpr-tgned order of assessment, dt 27 i- '20 )li' having approacheC : I ' Ilc[]-ltJ Commissioncr ol Lhe concrcl-ttrri I i"rsion br' submittlng a :, r"c sr:1-1t:ltion, clt'29 1 i '2OO8, hor't elcr clic not lal<e lr tact' thc anv steps -ir .:l : llellge the saicl order, ifiImediar ']\'' present wrjl ):.i l C)I.] h:lS been liled on thc 3od, dar o1. Llrc limitation prescribed trrc r' .lle Act ior filing an appcal, u'ilich in h': :cnsidered vieu, of this (l l .,l i is :)nlJ' lo gel over lhe rnanclaton P:r\ 'l1rlr L of l2 ' 5ol' of ta-x as a 1)r( I ( r'rcli. ion for fiting the appeal 25 Thou u ir i l rcl';ing on Lhe decision ol this Cc urt in ltolaji flour s. przL). il was conLended that th: I 't rr spot-rdent It{ills's cast:(1 authority c ru hl I lt havc passed an order of asses:;mc 1l p r -st-lant lo thc authorrz. ti, r I issued lor conductil]g audit, the sai I cl reL has not been taken b, i I'r pe titioner in the writ perition eLLher at h e time of filing or clurt rl t lt: pcnclcnc-r' of Lhc na[Lcr, bv si::l<illq :tln:tlclmetlt, evcn rhouelr i ir r r'. r'it petition has been penrling on h'-- ti e of thrs Coun, evr:r li,L:,. tf t:t Lhc alorc citcd decision is t'cr:cicr, cL

26. As notecl hcrcinabovc, since, the petitioner did not during the pendency ol the presenl Writ petition seek amendment of the prayer with regard to LI.,c 1'r I e spondent not having authorization to cause assessment on the basis of the authorization issued for audit. the respondents dicl not have the opportunity to contest the said claim either by accepting or otherwise of the 1st respondent having authori[y to pass the assessment order alter audit by considering r( pofl of rhr.Auclittrrg Oliiccr.

27. [t is settled position of law that the Court cannot make out a casq in lavnlp 61- ri.c p,.ririoncr r,r.hcn thc pcririoncr himself did not take steps lor seekLng such a rclief as l-reld by the Apex Court in Bharat Amratlal Kothari u. Dosukhan Somq.dkhrzn Sind.hi & Ors8, whereit'r it r,vas observed as Lrnder: "Though the Court has verv vide discretion in granting relief, the Court, however, cannol, rgnonng and keeping asjde the norms and princrples governing grant of relief, gralt a relief nol e\cir praycd for br Ihe petitroner.., In Akella Latitho. us Kond.a Hq.numanthq. Rao & Anr.s the Apex courl b1. foUorving the aforesaid prrncipre, has observecl as 28 '1zoro1 r scc z:a o 2022 sc online sc a28 "lf a Ccur t l:t-rsiclers or grants a relief for rvhich n) p'i]]'(rr o- pleading '\ 1', lnade depriving the rcsponde:lt ol oppoillltt l', t ) ol)posc or rcsisL stLch rchef' iL rvo t]cl cad Lrl miscar -t:r g, I i u:;tice'' I

29. Frtrthc l'. ir s al:;o to bc notcd lhat r'r'hilc tlle pi'ti';i(]n':r claims of ir havins tr:t:: r ratrtsd 15 days timc pursual't : ) t.I(r letter' dt. 10.1 1.20t E ..i t rcsponcle nts ot.I the other hand clai n o' the said request for 11riL:lr rl rime having been restrlcted to 17 1 I ' COE' and r- :.i . 1q allproachc-cl this Court b1' su1-'prc:rsittrl lhe said the pctition€ Act. lhe) saic a.lr I rl\ i'rsv bcing a disputed questiorl r'1' f 'lct :: nnoL bc - th( (lo i stitutLon gone into jtt .r r'. I i Petltlon liled undcr Arlrck: 226 o oflndiaIf}ect)itg&IndustrialDeut.CorpusDosuAlrdeshir Bhiwqndiwa lo <5r, Ctrsr o j

30. As this I o I -l has no\v come to a conclusior ihiLt tl e present Writ Petitlorr ['i-r ; bc:en fiied b5' the petitioner onlv tl b 'lrass the remedy o[ rtlt:r,: r.l providcd under the VAT Act, .2C01' ti' makir-rg claims, \vhir;h ''- I ir'tq ;{rcie, appear tr I be contralrr 1 l llre l'e 3')rd this Court is o.l llr, i e.\\ thalt ti-re prescnr Wril Pr:titir rr as L'i e:l ts not mainrainabkr r:t I petitioncr should be relcgarcd lc :ll i t1 tl Ii re lncdv of appeal pr-,', irLr : rtrtder thc Acl.

31. Houc',c . rr cr'tg note ol the fact that lhe pcli ion'lr ll rving filed the present \\ r'rr i)etition on 26.12.2OO8, and sinct thc .r\c: provides " 2oo9lt1scc rs, for limitation ol 30 days for filing such appeal by conferring power on the authority to condone the delay of further period of 30 days, this Court is of the vierv that while the petitioner should be relegated to avail lhe remedy or appear against the impugned order of assessment in Form 305, dt.27.11.2008, the appellate Authority under the VAT Act, 2005 is to be directed entertain the appeal if such an appeal is liled within (30) days from rhe date of receipt of a copy oI the order, along with an aDplication seeking condonation ol_ delay, and by paying mandatory payment of 12.5% of tax, and decide the same on merrts 32- Subject to the above observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Misccllaneous petirions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// To, 1 The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Vidhya Complex, Abids, Hyderabad. S /-T. TIRUMALA DEVI EPUTY REGIST SECTION OFFICER ar Circle,. Mayur Kushal

2. The Commercial Tax Officer, R.P, Road Circle, Mayur Kushal Complex, Abids, Hyderabad.

3. One CC to SRI B.SRINIVAS, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SPL SC FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR COIVMERCIAL TAX, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

0. Two CD Copies BSR BS HIGH COURT DATED: 3A104t120,25 ORDER WP.No.28425 cf 12008 -, ':' ; i,irO ,,i ( [ 5 1U1i ZUb t * cf) IcS ,z rr tl \\=== ((\ z f DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT C,CIJTSi q@fl"" Y* --<;1ta