M/s.R.K.Distilleries Private Limited v. 1. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) / The Appellate Joint

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 any Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 1st Respondent in issuing the impugned order issued in ADC Order No.29 dated 0110212024 in Appeal No.Sl74l2021-22 VAT r/w Proceedings under Rule 60 of VAT Rules vide ADC Order No.188 daled 111O712024 issued by the 1st respondent while rejecting the lnput Tax of Rs.1,80,553851 for the year 2O14-15, on inputs used for manufacture of Taxable Goods enlisted under Entry No.1 of Vl th Schedule to VAT Act for the year 2O14-15, as illegal, arbitrary, without any authority, without jurisdiction, with predetermined mind, unreasoned order, contrary to the Settled law by Apex Court, contrary to the principles of natural justice, contrary to the Provisions of TVAT Act and the Rules made there under, with utter judicial indiscipline to the Orders of the Apex Court and contrary to Article 1a, 19(1)(g) and 3004 of the Constitution and to set aside the impugned order and to allow the input tax to the [)etitioner as per law WRIT PETITION NO: 32074 OF 2024 Between: M/s.R.K.Distilleries Private Limited, Survey No.104/A, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State Rep Gurucharan Singh Bagga, Yellampet Village, By its Director Sri .,,PETITIONER AND

1. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner(CT) / The Appellate Joint Commissioner (ST), sth Floor, CCT Complex, Opp.Gandhi Bhavan, Nanpally, Hyderabad- 500001.

2. The Commercial Tax Officer, Malkajgiri Circle, M-Block, fVlanoranjan Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad-50001.

3. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (ST), Governmr:nt of Telangana. CCT Complex, Opp.Gandhibhavan, 1 st Floor, Nampally, llyderabad-500001.

4. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Sectretary kr Revenue CT Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the, l-ligh Court may be pleased to issue any Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring, the action of 1st Respon,lent in issuing the impugned order issued in ADC Order No.30 dated Ol lt)212024 in Appeal No.Sl75l2021-22 VAT r w Proceedings under Rule 60 of V/\T Rules vide ADC Order No.189 dated 1110712024 issued by the 1st responden: while rejecting the lnput Tax of Rs-74.52,7571- fot the year 2015-16 on inputs use j for manufacture of Taxable Goods enlisted under Entry No.1 of Vlth Schedule to t/AT Act for the year 2O15-16. as illegal. arbitrary, without any authority, witho rt jurisdiction, with predetermined mind. unreasoned order, contrary to the Settled law by Apex Court. contrary to the principles of natural justice, contrary to the Proyisions of TVAT Act and the Rules made thereunder, with utter judicial indiscipline to the Orders of the Apex Court and contrary to Article 1 a, 19(1 Xg) and 3004 of th€ Constitution and to set aside the impugned order and to allow the input tax to the F'etitioner as per law WRIT PETITION NO: 3219't OF 2024 Between: M/s.R.K.Distilleries Private Limited, Survy No.104/A, yellampet Village Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangani State Rep. By its birector Sri Gurucharan Singh Bagga, ...PETITIONER AND

1. 2 3 4 The Appellate Deputy, Commissioner(CT) / The Appellate Joint 9ommissione,r-(ST 5th Floor, CCT Complex, Opp.Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad-500001 The Commercial Tax Officer, Malkajgiri Circle, M-Block, Manoranjan Complex, Nampal ly, Hyderabad-50001 The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (ST), Government of Telangana, CCT Complex, Opp.Gandhibhavan, 'lst Fldor, Nampally, Hy dera bad='-500001 The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Sectretry to Revenue CT Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia praying fiat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 1st Respondent in issuing the impugned order issued in ADC Order No.3'1 dated 0110212024 in Appeal No.Sl76l2021-22 VAT r/k Proceedings under Rule 60 of VAT Rules vide ADC Order No.1 90 dated 'l 1lO7l2O24 served on 24107 12024 issued by the 1 st respondent while rejecting the lnput Tax of Rs.1,04,04.360 for the year 2O16-'17 on inputs used for manufacture of Taxable Goods enlisted under Entry No.1 of Vlth Schedule to VAT Act for the year 2016-17, as illegal, arbitrary, without any authority, without jurisdiction, with predetermined mind, un,reasoned order, contrary to the Settled law by Apex Court, contrary to the principles of natural justice, contrary to the Provisions of TVAT Act and the Rules made thereunder, with utter judicial indiscipline to the Orders of the Apex Court and contrary to Article 14, 19(1 Xg) and 3004 of the Constitution and to set aside the impugned order and to allow the input tax to the Petitioner as per law. i a Between: WRIT PETITION NO: 32461 OF 2024 M/s.R.K.Distilleries Private Limited, Survy No.104/A Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State R.ep Gurucharan Singh Bagga, Yellampet Village By its Director Sri ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Appellate Deputy Commissione(CT), The Appellate Joint Commissioner (ST 5th Floor, CCT Complex, Opp.Gandhi Bhavan, Namlr2lly, Hyderabad- 500001 2 3 4 The Commercial Tax Officer, Malkajgiri Circle. IVI-Bloik, l{anoranjan Complex. Nampally, Hyderabad-50001 The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (ST), Government of Telangana CCT Complex, Opp.Gandhibhavan, 1st Floor, Nampally, lyderabad-500001 The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Sectre4 to Fevenue CT Department. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under A(icle 226 of the Constitution of ln,lia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the tligh Court may be pleased to issue any Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of '1 st Respon Jent in issuing the impugned order issued in ADC Order No.32 daled 01-J2-2024 in Appeal No.Sl77l2021-22 VAT r/w Proceedings under Rule 60 of V,\T Rules vide ADC Order No.'191 dated 11-07-2024 served on 24-07 -2024 by the 1st respondent while rejecting the lnput Tax of Rs. 22,O9,4361- for the year 2017 -18, on inputs used for manufacture of Taxable Goods enlisted under =ntry No.1 of Vlth Schedule to VAT Act for the year 2017-18, as illegal, arlitrary, without any authority, without jurisdiction, with predetermined mind, unreasoned order, contrary to the Settled law by Apex Court, contrary to the trinciples of natural justice, contrary to the Provisions of TVAT Act and the Rules made thereunder, with utter judicial indiscipline to the Orders of the Apex Cc urt and contrary to Article 14, 19(1Xg) and 3004 of the Constitution and to set aside the impugned order and to allow the input tax to the Petitioner as per law Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. T S MURTHY (tN ALL THE WR|T PETTTTONS) Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA SPl.. cP FOR STATE (tN ALL THE WRIT PET|T|ONS) TAX The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER ,THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. WSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION NOS.3 203s.320,74.32L91 AND 32461 oF2024 COMMON ORDER: (Per tLrc Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy paul) Sri T.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleadei for State Tax for the respondents.

2. Regard being had to the similitude of the orders impugned herein, on the joint request of the parties, these writ petitions were analogously heard on admission.

3. The facts are taken from W.P.No.32035 of 2024. The order under cha,llenge is the appellate order dated O1.O2.2024 4 . The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short 'the ActJ, the respondents have no authority, jurisdiction and competence to impose the tax. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that this is the second visit of the petitioner for the same grievance to this Court. Earlier, the petitioner filed W.P.No.Il674 of 2O2l and batch before this Court, which were disposed of by a common order dated 28.0I.2022, whereunder the petitioner was directed to 2 avail the remedy of appeal. Learned counsel for the petrtroner fairly submits that against the first appeliate or der I mpugned herein also, the petitioner has a remedy under thc l ct to approach the Appellate Tlibunal, but the petitioner may not be relegated to avail the said remedy because the impugned order s erroneous in nature. No useful purpose would be served i r sending the petitioner to the Appellate Tribunal. It is submitt:d that he wiil advance his arguments on the basis of certain .iu'lgments which can be considered by this Court itself.

5. Learned Special Government Pleader for Sta-e Tax submits that the petitloner has a statutory alternative renLedy before the Appellate Tribunal.

6. We have ,:onsidered the aforesaid aspect. In the iirst round itself in W.P.No.11674 of 2021 and batch, th.Ls Court has not entertained the writ petitions because of availability cl1' statutory alternative remedy of appeal. At present also, t'ht: petitioner has another remedy of appea-I before the Appellat': 'lribunal' If we agree with the argument of the learned counsel fcr the petitioner that in the impugned order adequate reasons have not been assigned by the appellate authority, it will rr ake the order J 'erroneous' and not without jurisdiction. Such order can be carled in question before the Appellate Tribunai. 7 ' This is trite that despite availability of alternative remedy, the writ petition can be entertained under certain circumstances. One of such is, violation of principles of naturai justice (see Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbail). The judgment of Whirlpool Corporation (supra) was subsequently considered by the Supreme Court in U.p, State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandeyz ald it was heid as under:_ " 17. ...But nonnallg, the High Courl should" not entettain uit petitions unless it is shotan that there is something more in a cGSe, something going to the root of tLte jurisdiction of the offtcer, someliing ihich tuould- shout that tt utould be a case of palpabtelnjustice to the writ.petitioner to force him to adopt the remed.ies prouided by the statute. . .."

8. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.S.pandey (supra), mere violation of principles of natural justice cannot be a ground for entertaining a petition. .,Matntainability. ald "entertainability" of the petition are two different facets. Every petition which is maintainable is not required to be entertajned. The Supreme Court in its recent judgment dated 10.04.2024 in r (1998) 8 SCC i ' (200s) 8 scc 264 4 the case of PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. UCO Bank and Others3 disapproved the order of TelanganeL {igh Court in W.P.No.5275 Ltf 2021, dated 04.O2.2O22, wLLerein zr Division Bench of this oourt entertained a writ Petition cles,pite availability of alternative rcmedy. The Supreme Court opir ed that merely because a petil.ion is maintainable, it is not necessary trl entertain a petition. It is the discretion of the Court to entt:rtain a petition ald not a compr-rlsion. The relevant paragraph reaCs as under: It. r:oul.d thus be seen that, this ('ourt has " I 5. clec,:11 iteld. that the High Court will ordinarilg not efttert@in a petition under Atticle 22(; o;f the Constitution if an elJectiue remedg is a.uoilable to the aggrieved person. It hc,s been held I hat this ntle applies uith greater rigout in mdtters inooloinq recouerll of taxes, cess, fees, otlrcr t.gpes of pubtic mofleg and the dues oJ banks and other financial institutions. The Court clearlg obsenncl tt-Lat, tuhile dealing tuith the petitions inuolt'ting chali.enge to th.e action taken for recouery of he pu-blic dues, etc., ttrc High Court must keep in mintt that the legisla.tions enacted bg Parliament ar' d State LegislLtl.ures for recouery of such dues are a :ode t Lnto thenrselues inctsmuch as they not ot'tlg corLtain cornpreltensiue procedure for recouery of t,he dues but ctlso e'nusage constitution of quasi-judiciol lndies for redres,sal of the gieuance of ang aggieue'd oerson. It Itas been held that, though the pou.ters of the ]Iigh Cou.rt under Article 226 of the Constittttic n ar<z of u.tidest amplitude, still the Courts cannot be ooliuiot,.s of the n es oJ self-imposed restraint euolue'7 bg this Cour7. The Court further held that though. tie ru e of exhtLustion of alternotiue remedy is a rule o:f discretion and not one oI col4pt11Eie11, :;till it is ' (2024) 4 s.c.R. 54 L ! I i I ! i t i 5 dillicult to fathom ang reason whg the High Court should entertqin a petition fi.led under Article 226 of the Constitution. (Emphasis Supplied)

9. The impugned appellate order is not shown to be without jurisdiction. The petitioner has an efficacious alternative statutory remedy. An erroneous order cal be corrected by the statutory adjudicatory forum i.e., the Tribunal. Thus, we a_re not inclined to entertain these writ petitions.

10. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of by reserving the liberty to the petitioner to avail the aloresaid remedy. If the petitioner prefers such appeals within fifteen days from today, the Appellate Tribunal shall consider and decide the same on merits artd the appeals shall not be thrown overboard on the ground of delay. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPYII SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL AS IS ANT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER I I To,

1. The Appellate De (ST Sth Ftoor. CC 500001 +?"9"#I''d;JBXRJ*I[:,A'f "^EHd",,[f ;ffi 2. The Commercial Tax Officer_, Malkaigiri Circle, M_Btock, Manoranjan. 3. The Commissioner of C( Complex. Nampally, Hyderabad_SOOdf - - ", '" " ccrc"*H,"d;:#""J[ilf; :?:l,l?ffi ,L"T]-""'#ililil,fJ,I;Sgaaa., ll:Jr:[:[al Sectretry to Revenue cr Department, secretariat Buirdinss, t ,B:f_,",

5. One CC to SRt. T S MURTHY Advocate tOpUCI __\c.fry ,/ t 6 Two CCs to SRI SWAROOP OORILLA SP^L '9'P #ih; s;i;6 of T"l"ng'na at Hvderabad loUTl Two CD CoPies 7 KKS BS FOR STATE High Court \ v. HIGH COURT DATED:1 810212025 t l I I [ 1t]i zffi 'r COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.32035,32074,32191 and 32461 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS I