2022 (6) TMI 1174 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of revision proceedings - power of Commissioner and other prescribed authorities to suo motu revise an earlier order - HELD THAT - The statutory provision of law u/s 33 of the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005, makes it very clear that there is a remedy of appeal against an order passed under section 32 of the Act. In the considered opinion of this court, as the petitioner was heard by the revisional authority while passing the impugned order, and the revisional authority was jurisdictionally competent to pass such an order, the petitioner has to prefer an appeal, keeping in view the statutory remedy of appeal available under the Act. All the grounds raised by the petitioner will certainly be looked into by the appellate authority and the petitioner shall be free to place reliance upon the judgments of the honourable Supreme Court as well as other judgments and to raise all possible grounds before the appellate authority. This court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders, in the light of the fact that there is a statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Revision proceedings under Section 32 of the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
2. Jurisdictional competence of the revisional authority.
3. Availability of statutory remedy of appeal under Section 33 of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Revision proceedings under Section 32:
The judgment involves a challenge to revision proceedings initiated under Section 32 of the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The petitioner, aggrieved by the revision proceedings dated September 18, 2021, argued that the revisional authority erred in law in passing the impugned order. The statutory provision empowers the Commissioner and other prescribed authorities to revise an earlier order if prejudicial to the interests of revenue. It is noted that the impugned order was passed by an authority jurisdictionally competent to do so.

2. Jurisdictional competence of the revisional authority:
The court considered the argument raised by the petitioner regarding the alleged errors in the impugned order and the failure to consider judgments of the Supreme Court. However, it was observed that the revisional authority was competent to pass the order, and the petitioner had the opportunity to present their case before the revisional authority. The court emphasized that all grounds raised by the petitioner could be addressed in the appeal process, and the petitioner could rely on relevant judgments before the appellate authority.

3. Availability of statutory remedy of appeal under Section 33:
The judgment highlights the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 33 of the Act against orders passed under Section 32. The court emphasized that the petitioner should avail of the appeal process, where all grounds raised could be reviewed by the appellate authority. As there is a statutory remedy of appeal available, the court found no reason to interfere with the impugned orders and dismissed the writ petitions, emphasizing the importance of following the appeal process for redressal.

In conclusion, the court declined admission and dismissed the writ petitions, emphasizing the importance of utilizing the statutory remedy of appeal available under the Act. The judgment underscores the significance of following the established legal procedures for addressing grievances related to revision proceedings and the availability of appellate recourse for aggrieved parties.