THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.24220 OF 2009 DATE: 2-2-2010 Between: M/s Best & Crompton Engineering Limited Cennai rep. by its Dy. General Manager, Sri K.S.Balasubramanian ……. Petitioner And 1. The Commercial Tax Officer, R.P. Road Circle, Secunderabad and another …….. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.24220 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) Heard Sri S. Dwarakanath, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Blaji Varma, learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial or respondents. The revisional order dated 24.09.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent is assailed herein. Petitioner is a registered dealer on the rolls of the 1st respondent engaged in the business of works contracts. For the assessment year 2002-03 under the APGST Act, 1957, the 1st respondent passed the assessment order dated 29.09.2005 determining a net turnover of Rs.2.51 crores bringing to tax, at different rates. It would appear that the petitioner entered into a sub-contract agreement with Associated Transrail Structures Limited, for construction of 500 KV HVDC line on the Kolar- Porumamilla route in Andhra Padesh. For execution of the above and other contracts, the petitioner received consideration. On these receipts the 1st respondent in the order of assessment dated 29.09.2005 admitted the petitioner’s claim for exemption towards labour charges and for erection of towers granted 30% as labour charges and levied tax on the turnover relating to material like cement, steel, metal and sand. In respect of another agreement with the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited for supply and erection of 400 KV transmission line the 1st respondent similarly granted exemption on the turnover relating to supply of equipment treating the same as transit sales and on the erection portion of the contracted turnover levied tax after granting deduction of 20% towards labour charges. The 1st respondent, however, revised the order of assessment on 13.10.2005, on the petitioner’s representation dated 10.10.2005 that TDS amount to a tune of Rs.3,91,939/- was not given credit to in the assessment order, being the amount collected and remitted by the main contractor i.e., PGCIL, by way of TDS. The revised assessment order of the 1st respondent dated 13.10.2005 resulted in a refund of Rs.3,33,988/-. While so the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 23.07.2009 proposing revision of the assessment order asserting that the 1st respondent had erroneously granted exemption on the turnover relating to labour charges. The show cause notice was received by the petitioner on 07.08.2009 and on 10.08.2009 the petitioner represented to the 2nd respondent seeking time to file objections till 31.08.2009. The 2nd respondent issued another notice dated 01.09.2009 directing the petitioner to file a reply within fifteen days failing which his proposals for revision would be confirmed. By another representation dated 08.09.2009, responding to the notice dated 01.09.2009 the petitioner requested time till 30.09.2009 claiming ill-health of an associate who was helping the petitioner out with the assessments. The 2nd respondent issued another notice on 10.09.2009 received by the petitioner on 17.09.2009 calling upon the petitioner to file written objections on or before 25.09.2009. The Counsel for the petitioner filed a vakalat before the 2nd respondent along with a letter dated 24.09.2009 seeking ten days time to file objections in the matter. By another letter dated 05.10.2009, the petitioner’s Counsel sought a further ten days time for finalizing the draft objections. Though the 2nd respondent by the letter dated 10.09.2009 had intimated the petitioner to file objections on or before 25.09.2009 (failing which the revision would be confirmed without any further notice in the matter), the 2nd respondent had passed the impugned orders, exercising revisional power on 24.09.2009 itself even before the time for filing objections as granted by the 2nd respondent’s letter dated 10.09.2009 had expired is the substantive complaint in this writ petition. Sri P. Balaji Varma, learned Government Pleader for Commercial fairly states that this chronology of facts is consistent with the In the circumstances, the revisional order of the 2nd respondent dated 24.09.2009 cannot be sustained for being in violation of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to submit its objections. The impugned order dated 24.09.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent is, accordingly, quashed. It would appear that the petitioner has also sought personal hearing before finalizing the revision. In the circumstances, the 2nd respondent shall accord personal hearing to the petitioner, after due intimation of the date and shall proceed to pass fresh orders in exercise of the revisional powers within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed as above. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J Date: 02.02.2010 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J MRKR/ASP