Telangana High Court
M/S Bhongir Tyres Mrf Exclusive ... vs The State Of Telangana, on 22 June, 2023
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.15665 of 2023
ORDER:(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan) Heard Mohammad Imthiyaz Pasha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L.Venkateswar Rao, learned Special Standing Counsel, Commercial Tax Department representing the respondents.
2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed legality and validity of revisional order dated 26.04.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent.
3. Be it stated that petitioner is a registered dealer under the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (briefly referred to hereinafter as 'the VAT Act'). Petitioner carries on the business of dealing with sale and purchase of MRF Tyres & Tubes etc. For the period from 2016-17 to 2017-18 (upto June, 2017), petitioner was assessed by respondent No.4 vide 2 HCJ & NTRJ W.P.No.15665 of 2023 order dated 18.09.2019. On scrutiny of the assessment record for the aforesaid period, it was found that assessing authority had allowed Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs.21,01,205.00 without proper scrutiny of purchase details etc. In this connection, revision show cause notice dated 30.11.2022 was issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner whereafter the impugned order dated 26.04.2023 was passed.
4. From a perusal of the order dated 26.04.2023, it is seen that as per the 2nd respondent, there was no response from the petitioner. Ultimately final hearing notice was issued whereafter petitioner had filed a letter dated 13.02.2023, but no purchase details were furnished. The accounts as certified by the chartered accountant were also not furnished. In the circumstances, 2nd respondent acting as the revisional authority under Section 32 of the VAT Act passed the impugned order confirming the proposed levy of tax to the tune of Rs.21,01,205.00.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the statements made in paragraph 7 of the writ affidavit and 3 HCJ & NTRJ W.P.No.15665 of 2023 submits that petitioner had submitted the entire record as sought for by respondent No.2, but the same was not looked into by respondent No.2 on the ground that the purchase record was not in format.
6. Adverting to the impugned order dated 26.04.2023, we find that according to the 2nd respondent also, the dealer (petitioner) did not submit the purchase details in the required format; besides the accounts were not certified by the chartered accountant.
7. On due consideration, we are of the view that objection raised by the 2nd respondent is more of form than of substance. When the petitioner had submitted the record, the same ought to have been considered by the 2nd respondent before passing an order of revision revising the assessment order to the prejudice of the petitioner.
8. That being the position, we set aside the order dated 26.04.2023 and remand the matter back to the file of the 2nd respondent for a fresh hearing and decision in 4 HCJ & NTRJ W.P.No.15665 of 2023 accordance with law. It would be open to the petitioner to submit the record as sought for including the accounts certified by the chartered accountant. Besides petitioner shall also be provided a personal opportunity of hearing before the fresh order is passed.
9. Let the entire exercise on remand be completed within six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.
11. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed.
_______________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ _______________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 22.06.2023 KL