THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ORS versus NEERAJA PIPES PVT. LTD.

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 926 · Decided: 15-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
926
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ORS.
v.
NEERAJA PIPES PVT. LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 760 of 2023)
MARCH 15, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.]
Notices/Process: Mode of service of orders and notices – Non-
service of notice/assessment order – Consequence of – Assessee
alleged that the Revenue did not provide copies of assessment order
and proceeded to claim tax as arrears and attached the properties
of the assessee – High Court, relying on r. 64 held that revenue did
not have record evidencing the service of assessment order on the
assessee; and that it was not clear on what basis revised notices as
well as notices of attachment claiming arrears of tax from the assessee
were issued, and thus set aside the same – On appeal, held: Under
r. 64, when any statutory or administrative order, visits a citizen or
entity with adverse consequences, such an order has to be served
upon the concerned person; especially so, when that order is
appealable or subject to revision by higher authorities – In the
previous writ petition where assessee were impleaded, the assessee
did not dispute that it had not received the copies of assessment
orders – It highlights the assessee’s conduct in deliberately choosing
to keep quiet, even when it could have raised a grievance –
Moreover, the assessee also did not dispute that it had not received
the copies of assessment orders, in those writ proceedings – Further,
it did not seek copies of the assessment orders, in the representations
addressed to the revenue after the second attachment order was
issued – It cannot be said that the attachment orders were
unenforceable, because the assessment orders were not served on
it – Judgment and order of the High Court is set aside – Attachment
notice in Form V is revived and it is open to the revenue to recover
the dues owed, as per the said notice – Telangana VAT Rules – r. 64
– Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 – Telangana State
Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
Amina Bi Kaskar (D) by LRs. v. Union of India & Ors.
(2018) 16 SCC 266; Sri Budhia Swain & Ors. v.
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 926
926
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
927
Gopinath Deb & Ors. (1999) 4 SCC 396 : [1999] 2
SCR 1189 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2018) 16 SCC 266
referred to
Para 17
[1999] 2 SCR 1189
referred to
Para 17
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 760 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.09.2021 of the High Court
for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in WP No. 3703 of 2020.
M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant
Kumar Tyagi, P. Srinivas Reddy, Advs. for the Appellants.
M. Vijaya Bhaskar, Chandan Mishra, B. Paramesh, Advs. for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. The appeal was heard, with consent of counsel for the parties.
The appellant, Commercial Tax Officer (hereafter called “the revenue”)
is aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Telangana High Court1, by
which a writ petition filed by the respondent (hereafter “the assessee”)
was allowed.
2. The assessee questioned the revenue, complaining that it did
not provide copies of assessment order for the years 2005-06, 2008-09,
2009-10, and 2010-11 under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act,
1957 (hereafter “APGST Act”). and Telangana State Value Added Tax
Act, 2005 (hereafter “VAT Act”) and for not lifting attachment order
dated 03.02.2012 and another, revised attachment order dated 20.02.2018
under Form V invoking the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act, 1864
(hereafter “the RR Act”), under Section 27 of the VAT Act. The revenue
had issued assessment orders for the assessment years (AYs) 2005-06
to 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, under which ` 1,88,81,000/-,
` 2,38,84,000/- and ` 2,21,83,854/- was claimed respectively, as tax due
and payable.
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ORS. v. NEERAJA PIPES
PVT. LTD.
1 Dated 28.09.2021 in WP No. 3703/2020
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
928
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
3. The assessee argued, before the High Court that the revenue,
despite several requests, did not furnish assessment orders, and that it
was not aware of them. Since these orders were allegedly not served,
the assessee submitted that it was unable to examine their correctness
and whether they conformed with the provisions of the VAT Act, and
further to enable it to avail remedies under the statute. The assessee
alleged that the notice dated 03.02.2012 in Form V under the RR Act
invoking Section 2

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.