Telangana High Court
M/S.Arka Energy Systems vs The Assistant Commissioner St on 6 August, 2020
Author: M.S. Ramachandra Rao
Bench: M.S.Ramachandra Rao
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Writ Petition No.11180 of 2020
ORDER :(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao) In this Writ Petition the petitioner is challenging J.C. Order No.179 dt.09.06.2020 passed by 2nd respondent in exercise of powers of Revision conferred on him under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
2. The petitioner is a proprietary concern carrying on business in production and sale of lubricants and other petroleum products. It is a registered dealer on the rolls of 1st respondent both under the Andhra Pradesh VAT Act / Telangana VAT Act 2005 and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
3. For the assessment years 2012-13, the petitioner filed its monthly returns reporting turnovers and claims to have paid applicable taxes.
4. According to petitioner, it reported CST turnover as Rs.4,63,81,284/- for the VAT returns and claimed exemption but it made a mistake in reporting turnovers for the months of May and October, 2012 under Central Sales Tax Act, and for the said months it mentioned the turnover of inter-State taxable sales as 'Nil'.
5. The petitioner contends that it did not realize its mistake and the respondents also did not point it out in their communication.
::2:: MSR,J & TA,J
wp_11180_2020
6. The 1st respondent issued a notice of Assessment dt.21.05.2015 in response to which the petitioner filed all the original 'C' and 'E1' Forms covered in their turnover of Rs.4,63,81,284/- before him on 17.10.2015. Thereafter, the 1st respondent passed an order on 10.06.2016 completing assessment which resulted in 'Nil' demand.
7. According to the petitioner, though it reported Rs.4,63,81,284/- in the VAT returns as exempted turnover covered under the 'C' Form and produced original declarations covering entire turnover before the 1st respondent, he passed the Assessment Order dt.10.6.2016 taking the turnover only as Rs.3,83,26,236/-.
8. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent issued notice of Revision on 16.07.2019 proposing to revise the order dt.10.06.2016 of the 1st respondent by invoking power under Section 32(2) of the Telangana VAT Act, 2005 read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on the ground that there is a violation of turnovers compared to the Books of Accounts, and the returns filed / assessed tax. The 2nd respondent further stated that the petitioner had showed a lesser turnover and therefore the order passed by the 1st respondent was prejudicial to the interests of Revenue.
9. In response to the said Revision show-cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed detailed objections and produced evidence in support of the claim of exemption and requested the 2nd respondent to drop the proposed revision. The petitioner also addressed a letter dt.08.08.2019 to the 2nd respondent stating that it ::3:: MSR,J & TA,J wp_11180_2020 had submitted all 'C' and 'E1' Forms for the period 2012-13 indicating turnover of Rs.4,63,81,284/-, and that the 2nd respondent should, therefore, consider the said material and drop the proposed revision.
10. Without adverting to this material, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order in J.C. Order No.179 dt.09.06.2020.
11. In the said impugned order, the 2nd respondent observed that the petitioner did not file any additional statutory forms or any other documentary evidence in support of their claim of exemption on the remaining turnover of Rs.80,55,048/-.
12. The counsel for petitioner contended that the 2nd respondent should have dealt with the contention of the petitioner that there is no variation of turnovers reported in the monthly returns and Books of Accounts and he ought to have called for original assessment record to verify correctness of the claim of petitioner that it had reported the entire turnover in the monthly returns covered by the declarations or not; and that the 2nd respondent did not make any comment on the bona fide mistake of the 1st respondent in adopting wrong turnovers in the Assessment Order dt.10.06.2016.
13. Sri J. Anil Kumar, Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for respondents, is unable to explain why the 2nd respondent, while passing the Revision Order, did not advert to the letter dt.08.08.2019 filed by the petitioner specifically stating that it had filed the 'C' and 'E1' Forms for the turnover of Rs.4,63,81,284/-.
::4:: MSR,J & TA,J
wp_11180_2020
14. Sri J. Anil Kumar, counsel appearing for respondents, states that he has obtained instructions of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and stated that if the impugned Revision order is set aside, the 2nd respondent will re-do the exercise and consider the 'C' and 'E1' Forms submitted by the petitioner, and provide a personal hearing to the petitioner and then pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
15. In view of the said submission by the counsel for respondents, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned Revision Order in J.C.No.179 dt.09.06.2020 and the consequential order A.O.No.56129 dt.15.06.2020 are set aside, and the matter is remitted to the 2nd respondent to consider 'C' and 'E1' Forms filed by the petitioner.
16. The 2nd respondent shall also provide a personal hearing to the petitioner and then pass a reasoned order in accordance with law and communicate it to the petitioner.
17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed as above. No order as to costs.
18. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO _____________________________ JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD Date:06.08.2020 Ndr