Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 620 (TS)

Mohsin Steels v. Commercial Tax Officer

2020-08-13

M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, T.AMARNATH GOUD

body2020
JUDGMENT M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. - In this Writ Petition, the petitioner assails the assessment order AO.No.53105 dt.31-03-2020 passed by the 1st respondent for the tax period April, 2015 to March, 2016 under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that it is a proprietary concern by name M/s.Mohsin Steels and its proprietor is Mr.Hussain Pasha Mehmood; that assessee on the rolls of the 1st respondent is the petitioner and not its proprietor Mr.Hussain Pasha Mehmood; but in the impugned order, the 1st respondent treated the proprietor Mr.Hussain Pasha Mehmood as the assessee and not the petitioner, i.e, the proprietary concern M/s.Mohsin Steels as the assessee, and passed the impugned order. 3. It is also contended that before passing of the said order, no prior show cause notice was served on the petitioner and that there has been a violation of principles of natural justice. 4. It is pointed out that the impugned order records as if there was a response filed to the show cause notice electronically on 16-03-2020 by the petitioner, but in fact no such explanation was filed by petitioner because no such show cause notice was served on petitioner. It was also contended that no final show cause notice dt.06-03-2020 was served on the petitioner. Other contentions on merits were also raised. 5. Sri J.Anil Kumar, learned Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for respondents states that 1st respondent made a mistake in treating the proprietor of the petitioner concern as an assessee instead of the petitioner proprietary concern. 6. He also did not dispute the contention of the petitioner that prior show cause notice was not served on the petitioner, that no final notice dt.06-03-2020 was also served on petitioner, and that petitioner could not, for the said reasons, file a response to the show cause notice at all. 7. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained because it has been passed against the proprietor of the petitioner, who is not an assessee at all and that there was no prior show cause notice served on petitioner before passing of the impugned assessment order. 8. 7. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained because it has been passed against the proprietor of the petitioner, who is not an assessee at all and that there was no prior show cause notice served on petitioner before passing of the impugned assessment order. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petitioner is allowed; the assessment order AO.No.53105 dt.31-03-2020 passed by 1st respondent is set aside; the 1st respondent is directed to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner indicating the proposed turnover and proposed tax and serve it on petitioner through RPAD; the petitioner is granted six (06) weeks time from the date of receipt of the said show cause notice to file objections/reply to the show cause notice and also supporting material; personal hearing shall be provided to the petitioner; and then a reasoned order shall be passed in accordance with law and communicate it to the petitioner. No costs. 9. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.