Sri Hari Raju Penmatsa vs The Commercial Tax Officer And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3036 Tel

              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
                                     AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                            W.P. No. 31967 of 2022

ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)

      Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax appearing for the

respondents. Perused the record.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

assailing the order dated 30.03.2020 which is an effectual order

passed by respondent No.1 consequent to revisional order being

passed on 30.03.2022.

3. The point of issue raised by the learned counsel for the

petitioner in the present writ petition is that under the

provisions of Section 32(4) of the Telangana Value Added Tax

Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Revisional

Authority could have revised the order within a period of four (4)

years i.e, four years starting from the date of the order in

original passed. The revisional order and the effectual order both

have been passed much after a period of four years. Both being

much beyond the period of four years prescribed under Section

32 (4) of the Act. The Department seems to have proceeded with

the revision in terms of an amendment brought to Section 32 (4)

of the Act, extending the period of limitation from four (4) years

to six (6) years. However, the said amendment to Section 32 (4)

of the Act itself was subjected to challenge in a batch of writ

petitions before the Division Bench of this Court in case of Sri

Sri Engineering Works and Others Vs. Deputy

Commissioner (CT) and others. The leading case of which is

W.P.No.7893 of 2021. The Division Bench of this Court vide

order dated 05.07.2022 had held the amendment to be

unconstitutional and devoid of legislative competence. The High

Court, as a consequence, had set aside/quashed the notices

issued therein and orders passed under Section 32 (3) of the Act

and allowed the batch of writ petitions.

4. Though it has been submitted that the above said order

passed by the Division Bench of this Court is under challenge

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, there is no interim

order staying the effect of operation of the said order. As a

consequence, undisputedly, the amended provision does not

exist after the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in

the case of Sri Sri Engineering Works (supra) has been

passed. That after, the same had been declared unconstitutional

by the Division Bench of this Court and the same could not had

been invoked by the respondent authorities for exercising the

revisional powers. It is in this respect that the Bench hearing the

writ petition at the admission stage had granted an interim

protection vide order dated 05.09.2023. The aforesaid factual

matrix of the case is undisputed and is factual in nature so far

as revisional order and the effectual order having been passed

beyond a period of four years and as the period prescribed under

Section 32 (4) of the Act (unamended) and the provision which

as on the date is in operation.

5. So far as the amendment to the period of four years

limitation prescribed under the said Act having been extended to

six years, the same as has been said earlier has already been

struck down by this Court in the aforesaid batch of writ

petitions. The order of the Division Bench, striking down the

amended provision has not been interfered with or stayed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sri Sri Engineering Works

(Supra). The amended provision once when it has been struck

down by the Division Bench of this Court, the same provision

could not had been brought into force by the respondents and

the action therefore per se is without jurisdiction and

competence.

6. We have no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that

the effectual order and the revisional order on the basis of which

the effectual order has been passed, being beyond the period of

four years as is required under Section 32 (4) of the Act are not

sustainable and the same deserves to be and are accordingly set

aside/quashed.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as

to costs.

8. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if

any, shall stand closed.

___________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J

___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date: 10.10.2023 Ktm/kkm

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

W.P. Nos. 31967 of 2022 (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)

10.10.2023

Ktm/kkm