Telangana High Court
M/S Sravanthi Interiors vs The Commercial Tax Officer, And 3 Others on 12 January, 2024
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
&
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 3341 OF 2020
ORDER:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:
"....to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying tax at 14.5% under Section 4(7)(a) of TVAT Act 2005 on the disputed turnover through the impugned order dated 21.11.2019 for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 under TGVAT Act 2005 as illegal, arbitrary, high handed, without authority of law and jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the Act and in violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same."
2. Heard Mr.Bhaskar Reddy Vemi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. The brief facts, leading to file the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner is a proprietary concern carrying business in execution of civil contacts and is an assessee on the rolls of the respondent No.1 herein. During the assessment years 2013-14 PSK,J & LNA, J W.P. No.3341 of 2020 2 to 2017-18, the petitioner had executed certain civil works in the capacity of sub-contractor to the main contractors/builders, who have opted to pay tax under composition by filing Form VAT 250 in terms of Section 4(7)(b) of TGVAT Act, 2005 read with Rule 17(2) of TGVAT Rules 2005. It is contended that the petitioner being the sub-contractor, was exempted in respect of the turnover of works contract executed by it as sub- contractors to the main contractors and accordingly, claimed exemption and paid tax on the balance turnover wherever the liability was on the petitioner. The petitioner had also claimed exemption on the turnover of pure labour works since the turnover towards labour works were exempted as there was no involvement of transfer of property in goods by way of normal sale/deemed sale and the liability is only on the turnover of sale/deemed sale of goods.
4. It is contended that respondent No.2 had issued notice to the petitioner in Form VAT 304 directing to produce the books of accounts for the period 2013-14 to 2017-18 for the purpose of audit. The petitioner furnished the information through email dated 22.05.2019. The respondent No.2 thereafter had issued notice in Form VAT 305A dated 29.05.2019 proposing to levy tax to a tune of Rs.1,01,26,353/- on the ground that there is PSK,J & LNA, J W.P. No.3341 of 2020 3 variation of turnover in respect of the assessment period in dispute by comparing the turnovers with the profit and loss accounts of the petitioner and Form 26 AS.
5. The petitioner submitted his reply through email dated 07.08.2019 by explaining that out of the total receipts, major portion of the turnover is labour component. The petitioner also has furnished breakup in respect of each work it has executed as sub contractor. However, the petitioner did not respond promptly by producing relevant evidence i.e., as agreement copies with the main contractors and copies of Form 250 filed by the main contractors in support of its claim. Since the petitioner did not respond within the prescribed time, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order confirming the levy and raised the impugned demand.
6. The petitioner had contended that there was no suppression of turnover as such and the difference of turnovers was due to the inclusion of the receipts of labour contracts by respondent No.2. Further that the delay in responding to the show cause notice was only due to financial and domestic problems.
PSK,J & LNA, J W.P. No.3341 of 2020 4
7. It is also contended that though the petitioner had all the documents, the same could not be filed as the deponent was not in station for some time; that the assessment order was served on the watchman and the petitioner came to know about the same very late as the petitioner was undertaking a work at Bangalore. As such he could not approach Appellate Authority within stipulated time and therefore, the time limit of 30 days for filing appeal had lapsed. As there is no power to condone the delay beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 31 got amended in the year 2017, the petitioner has no other alternative remedy under the provisions of the TGVAT Act 2005.
8. Respondents have filed counter affidavit inter alia contended that the present writ petition is not maintainable in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (ST), LTU, Kakinada and others Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., 1 since the writ petition has been filed after expiry of the limitation period for appeal provided under Section 31 under the TVAT Act, 2005.
1 (2020) 19 SCC 681 PSK,J & LNA, J W.P. No.3341 of 2020 5
9. It is contended that assessment orders were passed in accordance with law in form VAT 305 dated 21.11.2019 and said orders sent to the addresses available in the office record by way of RPAD on 21.11.2019 under Rule 64 of the TVAT Rules. However, the same were returned with an endorsement "Addressee Left - Returned". It is further contended that statutory limitation period for filing an appeal under amended Section 31 of the TVAT Act is 30 days from the date of receipt of the assessment order i.e., on 22.11.2019. However, the petitioner filed present writ petition on 27.01.2020. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra.
10. It is contended that the petitioner is a VAT dealer and he was engaged in the business of Works Contract/Painting contracts and had been filing monthly return in Form VAT-200 disclosing the turnovers. Pursuance to the authorization issued by the Additional Commissioner (ST) Enforcement Wing, vide proceedings dated 24.04.2019, respondent No.2 issued notice in Form VAT 304, dated 25.04.2019. The petitioner was informed that audit of their books of accounts in connection with its business would be taken up on 29.04.2019 and requested the PSK,J & LNA, J W.P. No.3341 of 2020 6 petitioner to keep them ready for perusal of respondent No.2. The petitioner had submitted copies of profit and loss accounts and balance sheet for the financial years 2012-13 to 2017-18 and Form 26-AS on 22.05.2019 through email and the same were verified. On verification, it was found that there was difference of Rs.5,62,01,023/- in turnover between the turnovers reported in the monthly return and the turnover arrived at basing on the profit and loss account and Form 26- AS. Further, the petitioner did not produce any documentary evidence for exemption claimed through the monthly returns and therefore, the petitioner was eligible to tax of Rs.6,98,36,955/-.
11. The matter reported to the Additional Commissioner (ST) Enforcement Wing, O/o. Commissioner (ST), Hyderabad and permission was accorded to respondent No.2 to finalize the assessments of the petitioner for the above financial years, vide proceedings dated 27.05.2019. Accordingly, respondent No.2 issued show cause notice in form VAT 305-A dated 29.05.2018 proposing assessment under Section 21(3) of the TVAT Act r/w Rule 25(5) r/w Section 4(7)(a) r/w Rule 17(1)(g) of the TVAT Act, 2005 and TSVAT Rules, 2005 and raised tax demand of Rs.1,01,26,356/-. The petitioner was also requested to produce PSK,J & LNA, J W.P. No.3341 of 2020 7 all necessary documents in support of claim of exemption and to file objections, if any, within seven days from the date of receipt of the show cause notice. However, the petitioner did not respond, therefore, respondent No.2 has issued notice dated 11.06.2019 granting further time and also afforded the opportunity of personal hearing.
12. The petitioner filed letter dated 15.06.2019 stating that it was facing some financial problems and requested for one month time for submitting objections and books of accounts. The petitioner was granted seven days time through notice dated 28.06.2019, however, the petitioner did not file objections nor submitted any explanation. Further, respondent No.2 granted another three days time to the petitioner, however, the petitioner sent email dated 07.08.2019 seeking two weeks time stating that he was staying at Vijayawada and he would come to Hyderabad in a week and attach details of certain turnovers.
13. It is further contended that the petitioner did not produce any proof in support of the turnovers shown in the attachment. The petitioner was requested to produce all the documents within seven days through email dated 08.08.2019 of the second respondent. The petitioner again sought one week time PSK,J & LNA, J W.P. No.3341 of 2020 8 to produce documentary evidence through its letter dated 13.09.2019 and at the same time petitioner filed Form 560, dated 13.09.2019 authorizing Sri M.Lokesh Prasad, Accountant of its firm to receive sign any return/document/statements and to receive notices, orders etc; It is further stated that despite granting time, the petitioner did not cooperate with respondent No.2 in producing documentary evidence in support of its claim of exemption to finalize the assessment. In the attachment enclosed to the email dated 07.08.2019, the petitioner stated that their gross receipts in relation to works contract/painting contract about 40%, 60% and 70% were towards labour component, however, no evidence to this effect were filed before respondent No.2.
14. It is also contended that as the petitioner was trying to postpone or avoid assessment proceedings taken up by respondent No.2 by seeking extension on various occasions without submitting documentary evidence despite granting adequate opportunities. Finally, respondent No.2 had passed assessment orders for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2017- 18 in Form VAT 305 dated 21.11.2019. It is also contended that as per the provisions of Section 16 of the TVAT Act, the burden is on petitioner to prove that its purchases or sales are not PSK,J & LNA, J W.P. No.3341 of 2020 9 liable to tax or liable to tax at the reduced rates with the documentary evidence. Assessment order was sent to all the addresses of the petitioner including the authorized representative Mr.Lokesh Prasad, by RPAD.
15. It is further contended that the petitioner got an effective alternative remedy of appeal under Section 31 of the TVAT Act, 2005 and instead of availing the same, it has filed the present writ petition that too after expiry of time limit of 30 days for filing statutory appeal. It is also contended that the petitioner did not file Form 250 in terms of Section 4(7)(b) read with Rule 17(2) of TVAT Rules so as to assess under the composition scheme. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who is sub contractor to main contractors, opted to pay tax under composition by filing Form VAT 250 in terms of Section 4(7)(b) of TGVAT Act, 2005 r/w Rule 17(2) of TGVAT Rules, 2005. It is contended that non response to the show- cause notice and non production of records and file objections within stipulated time was neither willful but only due to difficulties faced by the petitioner. It is further contended that respondent No.2 erred in inclusion of the receipts of labour PSK,J & LNA, J W.P. No.3341 of 2020 10 contracts and even otherwise levy of tax at 14.5% without any authority. It is also contended that the petitioner has an option to approach the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, however, since, it has the onerous condition of pre deposit of 12.5% and no Appellate Authority would grant any stay at the first appeal stage, therefore going before the Appellate Authority would be an empty formality and would result in multiplicity of proceedings.
17. It is finally contended that entire demand is artificial in nature and as the petitioner is not in a position to deposit any money due to its financial position, the petitioner may be granted one opportunity enabling it to produce relevant documents before respondent No.2 for fresh consideration.
18. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner did not file Form 250 in terms of Section 4(7)(b) r/w Rule 17(2) of TVAT Rules so as to assess turnover of the petitioner under the composition scheme. He further contended that despite granting opportunities to the petitioner, he neither responded to the show-cause notice nor produced any documents, evidence in support of claim of exemption and only tried to bargain time. It is also contended PSK,J & LNA, J W.P. No.3341 of 2020 11 that in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Assistant Commissioner (supra), the writ petition is liable to be rejected.
19. He further contended that the notices, assessment orders were sent through RPAD, it is one of the regular modes of service under Rule 64 of the TVAT Rules. Further, the respondents have sent additional notices and assessment orders to the authorized representative Mr.Lokesh Prasad, accountant of petitioner firm. As such, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner with regard to non-service of notices and assessment order.
20. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents further contended that there is clear default on the part of the petitioner and the petitioner failed to file the appeal before the Appellate Authority within the stipulated time and approached this Court after lapse of appeal period. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and dispensation of appeal provision under Section 31 of the TVAT Act, 2005 would render the legislature scheme and its intention redundant. He finally contended that it is a fit case for relegation to the Appellate Authority in terms of PSK,J & LNA, J W.P. No.3341 of 2020 12 latest judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Civil Appeal No.5121 of 2021 dated 03.09.2021.
21. Having considered the rival contentions and also the material placed on record, it is evident that there is delay, latches on the part of the petitioner in responding to the show- cause notice as well as producing documents, evidence before the Authority in support of its claim for exemption from tax. It is also evident that the show-cause notice, assessment orders were sent to all the addresses of the petitioner including the authorized representative, accountant Mr.Lokesh Prasad, by RPAD, which is proper service under Rule 64 of the TVAT Rules.
22. Admittedly, the petitioner did not avail remedy of filing appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 31 of the TVAT Act, 2005 and further, the present writ petition is filed beyond statutory appeal period. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Assistant Commissioner's case (supra) held that since the statutory period specified for filing of appeal had expired long back in August 2017 itself and the appeal came to be filed by the respondent only on 24.09.2018, without substantiating the plea about inability to file appeal within the prescribed time, no indulgence could be shown to the respondent at all.
PSK,J & LNA, J W.P. No.3341 of 2020 13
23. In the above decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court also referred to Full Bench decision rendered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Electronics Corporation of India v. Union of India 2, wherein it was held that "In a given case, the assessee may approach the High Court before the statutory period of appeal expires to challenge the assessment order by way of writ petition on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction or passed in excess of jurisdiction -- by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction including in flagrant disregard of law and rules of procedure or in violation of principles of natural justice, where no procedure is specified. The High Court may accede to such a challenge and can also non-suit the petitioner on the ground that alternative efficacious remedy is available and that be invoked by the writ petitioner. However, if the writ petitioner chooses to approach the High Court after expiry of the maximum limitation period of 60 days prescribed under Section 31 of the 2005 Act, the High Court cannot disregard the statutory period for redressal of the grievance and entertain the writ petition of such a party as a matter of course. Doing so would be in the teeth of the principle underlying the dictum of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in ONGC [ONGC v.
PSK,J & LNA, J W.P. No.3341 of 2020 14 Gujarat Energy Transmission Corpn. Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 42 :
(2017) 3 SCC (Civ) 47] In other words, the fact that the High Court has wide powers, does not mean that it would issue a writ which may be inconsistent with the legislative intent regarding the dispensation explicitly prescribed under Section 31 of the 2005 Act. That would render the legislative scheme and intention behind the stated provision otiose."
24. However, the three-Judge Bench decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in ITC Ltd. V. Union of India 3, permitted the petitioner therein to resort to remedy of statutory appeal and directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits considering the difficulty expressed by the petitioner therein that the statutory remedy of appeal had now become time-barred during the pendency of the proceedings before the High court. It is further observed that High Court permitted the petitioner to avail the remedy of statutory appeal on the basis of concession given by the counsel appearing for the revenue as noted in para 2 (1) of the order, which read thus:
"2. The High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that there is an adequate alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 35 of the Central 2 2018 SCC Online Hyd 21 PSK,J & LNA, J W.P. No.3341 of 2020 15 Excise Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will face certain difficulties in pursuing this remedy:
(1) This remedy may not be any longer available to it because the appeal has to be filed within a period of three months from the date of the assessment order and delay can be condoned only to the extent of three more months by the Collector under Section 35 of the Act. It is pointed out that the petitioner did not file an appeal because the Collector (Appeal) at Madras had taken a view in a similar matter that an appeal was not maintainable. That apart, the petitioner in view of the huge demand involved filed a writ petition and so did not file an appeal. In the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice will be met if we permit the petitioner to file a belated appeal within one month from today with an application for condonation of delay, whereon the appeal may be entertained. The learned counsel for the Revenue has stated before us that the Revenue will not object to the entertainment of the appeal on the ground that it is barred by time. In view of this direction and concession, the petitioner will have an effective alternative remedy by way of an appeal. (emphasis supplied) In that case, it appears that the writ petition was filed within statutory period and legal remedy was being pursued in good faith by the assessee (appellant)."
25. It is relevant to note that learned counsel for the petitioner prayed this Court to remit the matter to Appellate Authority and grant an opportunity to the petitioner to produce documents, evidence in support of its contentions. It is also relevant to note the contention of the respondent at paragraph 3 (1998) 8 SCC 610 PSK,J & LNA, J W.P. No.3341 of 2020 16 No.18 of the counter, wherein it is contended that the present case is fit case for relegation to the Appellate Authority in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5121 of 2021, dated 03.09.2021, as the issue involved in the present matter relates to production of documentary evidence, which is purely question of fact, not involving any law.
26. Whether the petitioner is entitled for exemption as contended by the petitioner or it is liable to tax, has to be adjudicated by the assessing officer by duly examining, scrutinizing material and evidence placed by the petitioner. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot undertake such exercise. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, in the considered opinion of this Bench, the writ can be disposed of by remanding back the matter to the Appellate Authority for adjudication to meet the ends of justice.
27. In the light of the above discussions and peculiar facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 21.11.2019 for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 is set aside and the matter is remitted to Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication. The petitioner shall appear before the authority within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order PSK,J & LNA, J W.P. No.3341 of 2020 17 along with all the materials relied upon by it in support of its contentions. The Appellate Authority shall adjudicate the matter by duly affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and decide the issue in accordance with law within a period of three [03] months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
28. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
____________________________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J ____________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date:12.01.2024 Dua/kkm