2019 (4) TMI 794 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Revision of original assessment - Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005 - Held that - The fact remains that if both these aspects had been pointed out, the revisional authority would have been in a better position to take a holistic view. Therefore, the petitioner deserves one opportunity. The matter is remanded back to the revisional authority - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Challenging revisional order of assessment under Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a revisional order of assessment passed under the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The High Court noted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal available under the statute but had chosen to file a Writ Petition after six months. The petitioner cited reasons for the delay, including his son's betrothal ceremony, wedding, and a back injury from an accident. The Court considered whether delay and latches could be put against the petitioner and discussed the availability of alternative remedies. The scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was highlighted, emphasizing that the availability of alternative remedies is not always a bar. The Court proceeded to examine the main grievance of the petitioner regarding discrepancies in the ledger statements related to returns filed for June 2010 and July 2010. The petitioner argued that if these returns were considered, the need for revising the original assessment would not have arisen. The Court observed that the ledger account did not show an entry for July 2010 and acknowledged that the petitioner had filed a revised return for June 2010. The Court opined that had the petitioner participated in the enquiry, they could have pointed out these aspects, leading to a better assessment by the revisional authority. Consequently, the Court allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter back to the revisional authority for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to file objections to the show cause notice and participate in the enquiry, with a deadline set for filing objections and a date fixed for a personal hearing. Any pending miscellaneous petitions were to be dismissed, and no costs were awarded in the judgment.