Wp/15382/2025 Of Sri. K.praveen Kumar v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

HIGH COURT FOR THE ST TE OF TELANGANAAT HYDEBAD(Special Originalurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENEIGHTH DAY OF MAYTWO THOUSAND ANTWENTY FIVE PRESET THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICNAGESH BHEEMAPAKAAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION NO:5382 0F 202s Between: Sri. P tloK.Praveen Kumar,, S/o.Late NoE7Kn ShnaRe S dShri ehcvKatikanBedneKnBSS nh NaL RaToapshodn1 vExa h rSa ngRYoeMa nokaSna asr HasmahpeRoado d Bown[p]avSecun edla adb5 00090 ,....PETITIONER AND 1The Assistant Commissioner of lncomeax, The Assistant Commissioner ofn COme Taxnating officerBenam TI nSAct onSProhbnUnitHyd erabadn COme Taxnating officerBenam TI nSAct onSProhbnUnitHyd erabadJ1B[2]rd ftooravakar B haVAn BasheeaghHyd labad400 004 2The Joint CommSSIOner of ncome Taxpproving Authority BenamiTransactionsProh bit on Unit2rd F oorayakar Bhavan BasheerbaghHyderabad.TransactionsProh bit on Unit2rd F oorayakar Bhavan BasheerbaghHyderabad. 391o^l [qf India, Represented by Secreta]Revenue North Block New Delhi1 1000't .91o^l [qf India, Represented by Secreta]Revenue North Block New Delhi1 1000't . .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Contitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filederewith, the High Court may bepleased to pass an order or orders or Writ omore particularly one in the natureof a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impgned Show Cause Notice dated4.3.2025 and as well as thesummons d ted 20.3.2025 issued by the 1strespondent under 5.24(1) and 19 of theProhibition of Benami propertyTransactions Act, 1988 as arbitrary, illegal,thout jurisdiction, and contrary tothe decision of this Hon'ble Court in W.p.No4695 of 2021 and Batch, with pre- meditated mind, besides being vlolative of Article 14 and 21 of the constitution ofIndia and consequently set-aside the same. |.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stayall further proceedings pursuant to the Notice dared 4.3.2025 and as well as thesummons dated 20.3.2025 issued by the [.l ]st respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s R.SHAILAJA Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRI N.PRAVEEN REDDY gunsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI GAD| PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTYSOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following OROER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGH BHEEMAPANAANDHON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMIA ALIsHETTY WRIT PETITION No. 15 a2 0F 2o2s ORDERHon'ble Sri Justice NBheema aka Heard Mrs. R. Sha, learned counsel forpetitioner, Sri N. Praveen ReddY, [Ie]ned Standing Counsel forRespondents 1 and 2 and Sri GaPraveen Kumar, learnedDcputy Solicitor General on behalf [of]espondent No.3. 2The conspectus of the its that are narrated in theWrit petition are that [petitioner ][be]me the co-owner of landadmeasuring Acs. 25-Ob [out ][of ][Acs.]7-00 in Survey No. 80/D,situated at Hafeezpet Village, [Se]gampally Mandal, R.RDistrict, pursuant to a [registered]Settlement Deed bearingDocument No. 2630 of 2016, [dated]1O.3.2O 16. The settlementw,as execuled in petitioner's favours he was instrumental [in]the land from [enc]chments and incurredprotecting expenditure for its [preservation]while beinglnpeacefulpossession of the same. Petioner was a renownedinternational Badminton [player and]epresented India in several[ournaments. He [was ranked ][No. ][1]n the Country in the [earlY]9Os. On account [of ]Petitioner's [suc]ssful career in badminton,he garnered a fair [name throughou]India and had also madecontacts with the [creamy ][laYer ][o]the Society. Because of petitioner's flourishing career, he [was granted ]appointment [in]the State Bank of India and [worked ][in ][the bank ]up to 2007,when petitioner resigned as the Assistant [Manager ]in StateBank of India. Pursuant to petitioner's resignation in [20O8, ]heenterecl into the field of real estate and on his [wife's ][request,]petitioner visited Suruey No. 80 of Hafeezpet Village in [order ][to]localize and identify the property [purchased ][by his ][wife]K. Haritha and others uide registered Sale [Deeds ][bearing]Document Nos. 2667 of 2.006, 3669 of 2006, 3681 of [2006,]dated 19.O1.2006, 3733 of 2006, 9233 of 2006, dated20.O1.2006,9234 of 2006 and 9235 of 2006, dated 23.O1.2006followed by registered Ractihcation Deeds bearing documentNos. 4421 of 2006, 4422 ol 2006, 4423 of 2006 and [4424 ]of2006 all d.ated 28.02.2OO6, registered in the office of Joint [Sub]Registrar II Ranga Reddy in respect of lands in Sy.No.8O ofHafeezpet Village. Thereafter, petitioner entered onto the openland belonging to his wife u,hich was available in Survey No. 80and had protected the same by making a compound wall overpart of the available open land. From 2OO7 onwards till about2O15, petitioner handled multiple attempts which were made todispossess him. Once such instance is in and around 2007, atthe behest of CPI Party, thousands of illegal huts [q'ere ]sought tobe erected on the land where petitioner was in possession. )-/ Petitioner/family members by folwing due process of law,ensured that illegal huts were distled and removed. Apartfrom major incidents, on multiplecasions, third parties triedto encroach upon the said landand tried to raise illegalstructures/ attempt to dispossesstitioner, but petitioner hadresisted/ thwarted the said illegalncroachmen ts/ attempts byusing the remedies available underlaw and was able to protectthc land in petitioner's possession.3. It was further statedthat when in 2O 15, M/sGrcater Golconda Estates Privatemited and others triecl tointcrfere with his peaceful possessn and enjoyment over thesaid land, such attempts to disposess the petitioner forcefullywere legitimately resisted and re1led. On noticing strongresistance and considering petitione's possession over the saidland, M/s Greater Golconda EstatePrivate Limited and othersdecided to amicably settle the mater with petitioner. It wasfurther stated that petitioner red the fact that though he,"r,as in peaceful possession and enjent of the said property,the flow of title by M/s Greater Golcnda Estates Private Limitedand others was also found to be lely-valid in the eye of lawand as such, petitioner hadeed for the proposal ofM / s Greater Golconda Estates Priate Limited and others tosettle the matter by way of comproise as it would be in the best interest of both the parties and the same would result [not]only in a legally-valid title but also peaceful possession andenjoyment. With this common understanding, a De ed ofSettlement bearing Document No. 263O of 2016 of Book No.l,C.S. No. 27 a9 of 20 16, dated 10.O3.2016 was execLrted betweenthe parties, whereunder it was agreed that in respect of land inSurvey No. 80/D, admeasuring Acs. 50-00 Guntas, an extent ofAcs. 25-OO is allotted in petitioner's favour in lieu o[ petitioner'speaceful possession and enjoyment. Further, it was speci[rcallysta[ed that in 2O2O, when Government olficials threatened todismantle/demolish temporary structures which u,ere set up bypetitioner for their cmployees on the said land and tried todispossess, petitioner hled Writ Petition No.97O9 of 2O20 beforethis Court against the governmen[. When the claim made byTelangana State and Telangana State Waqf Board and tned tointerfere with peaceful possession and occupation ol petitioner,claiming title through Gazette notification and proceedings i.e.Telangana State (iazette Part-ll bearing No. 79 dated01 I 11, l2Ol4, wherein Munthaqhab entered in Book ofEndowment, Volume II at Page No 1 59 at Sl No 37 in F. No.1,6 / RR / Reg/ 20 13 dated 13 / 12 I 20 13 was published, petitionerwas constrained to file Writ Petition No. 12548 of 2O2O againstthe Wakf Board and others. This Court, after hearing the matter C at length, uide Common Order alloed both the Writ Petitionswith costs of Rs.50,0O0/- to each ofPetitioners to be paid by theState of Telangana and the Telanna State Waqf Board. It isfurther stated that the Commonrder in Writ Petitions No.2O7O7 ot 2018, 9709 of 2O2Ond 12548 of 2020 dated30.O3.2021 was challenged before te Hon'ble Supreme Court oflnd,ia uide SLP Nos,7154 of 2021,195 of 2O2r,7la6-7r88 of202 1 and the Hon'ble Supreme Crt granted status quo byorder dated 05.O7 .2021 in all respecs pertaining to the propertycovered under the Settlement Dee1O.O3.20 i6 and the saidmatter is still pending for adjudicatin4. [t is the specific contenion of petitioner that whenan order of Status quo granted by te Supreme Court is still inforce, no proceedings much lesproceedings under theprovisions of the Prohibition of Beami Property TransactionsAct, 1988 can be initiated in respt of the property coveredunder the Settlement Deed dated 10..2016. The outcome of theSLP woulddetermine whetherhe property is private,governmentor waqf. Without detination of rights beingtaken placeas to ownership of thsaid land and when thematter issub-judice before theHon'ble Supreme Court,initiating the present [proceedings]is uncalled for and isuntenable in law. [Further, ][it ][wa]stated by petitioner that t t pursuant to receipt of [impugned show cause ][)lotice ][datcd]04.O3.2O25, petitioner uide [letters ][dated ][17.3 ][2025 ][and]I9.3.2O25 requested a copy of the [statement ][rr:cordecl ][on]12.01.2022 to enable [petitioner ]to [provide ][a ][comprehcnsive]reply. Petitioner received the [said statement ][daLed ][l2.Ol ][2022]on 20.O3.2025 along with summons [dated ][20.O3 ][2025. ][It ][was]further statcd that the impugned [notice ][datecl ][04.03.2025]erroneously claimed that petitioner had [admit.ted ][in ][the]statement rccorded on [12.O1.2022 ]that [a sltm of ][Rs.]30,O0,O0O/- was paicl in cash [for purchase ][of ][land ][zrdmeasuring]Acs. 25-OO Guntas, after knowing [the ][said ][erroncous ][claim ][of]the I"t respondent that [petitioner ][admitted ][pa-ymcnt ][of ][Rs.30]Lakhs in cash petitioner was [put ]to severe shock. [surprise ][and]dismay, since he never admitted nor claimed to [hztvc ][paid ][Rs.30]lakhs in the statement recorded on 12.01.2022. It is [further]stated that petitioner found that the 1"t respondent had alreadyobtained st2tement from him on 12.l .2022 [,.r,herein ]heanswered ce rtain queries raisecl by the 1"t respondenl arndthereafter, no proceedings were initiated by the ls' respondentfor three years as such petitioner understood that he u,eissaddled u,ith the impugned notice dated 04.O3.2025 with pre-meditation as the impugned show cause notice refers to thestatement dated 12.O1.2022 referring that petitioner [paid] l l ) Rs.3O.OO Lakhs as consrderation forquiring Acs.25.OO of landin Sy.No.8O, Hafeezpet Village, Seriingampalli Mandal, RangaReddy District which was never sworor stated by petitioner, assuch the impugned show cause noce was issued with a pre-me ditated mind only to rope inthe petitioner under theprovisions of Prohibition of BenamiProperty Transactions Act,1988 5It was further stated thaif the show cause notice isan order by itself and not a showause notice and it is pre-meditated, then the Courts are entitld to interfere with the saidorder. While stating so, petitioner [re]ed on 1) Siemens India a.State of Mahdrashtrd I2OO7\ [2OZ]L.T. 168 (SC) and 2) sBQSteels Ltd us. Commtssioner oforzns, Guntur (2014 [(30O)]ELT 185 (AP). It was further [stat]that Settlement Deed inquestion was executed on 1O.O3.2O1, [which ][is prior ][to ][coming]into force of the Benami Transactios (Piohibition) AmendmentAcL, 2016, which took effect on [1 ][. ]I1.2016. In the AmendmentAct of 20 16 itself, it was clearlyentioned that it [would ][be]operative w.e.f. O1.11.2O16. Therore, on the date of thetransaction or commission of [the]eged offence, Section 2 [(9)](A) or Section 2 (9) (C) were not inexistence. It is the specificcontention of [petitioner ][that ][sinc]the very [j ]urisd icrion ofRrypondent No.l [in ][issuing ][the ][s][ ow-cause ][notice has ][been] I t t questloned, besides pre-meditated mind to issue the said [notice,]the Writ Petition would be maintainable. Whilc stating [so,]petitioner has relied on M/s B.R.C. Construction [Compang]Prioate Limited as. unioll. oJ India [(2017) S.C [Online ][Cal.]16142l and Nexus Feeds Limited & Others us. [The ]AssisfantCommissioner o.f Income fax. [W.P.No. [14695 ][of ][2021 ][&]Batchl.6. Per Contra, learned Standing counsel forrespondents states that . respondents have rightly [invoked]Sections 2(9)(A) and 2(9)(D) of Prohibition of [Benami ][Property]Transactions Act, 1988 and while supporting the contents [of ][the]show cause notice, stated that the 1"t respondent [had ][taken]statement from petitioner on 12.01.2022 that [petitioner ][had]paid consideration of Rs.30.00 Lakhs for acquiring Acs,25.OO ofland in Sy.No.8O of Hafeezpet Village, as such, has [rightly ][asked]for source of the same. Further the Standing Counsel alsocontended that petitioner can avail the remedy of filing reply tothe show cause notice, as such the present writ petition is notmaintainable. 7 . The question that falls for consideration is whetherthe impugned show cause notice is a pre-meditated notice andcalling for interference of this Court or not. -"' I 7 . The question that falls for consideration is whetherthe impugned show cause notice is a pre-meditated notice andcalling for interference of this Court or not. -"' I 8. The facts which arenot ln dispute are [that]petitioner became co-owner of landmeasuring Acs. 25-00 outof Acs. 47-00 in Survey [No. ][8O/D, ][s]uated at Hafeezpet Village,Serilingampally Mandal, [R.R. ][Distri]t, pursuant to a registeredSettlement Deed bearing [Documen]No. 263O of 2016, dated10.3.2016. The settiement [deed ][w]s executed in petitioner'sfavor as he was instrumental [in]protecting the land fromencroachments and had [incu]ed expenditure for [its]prescrvation while being in PeaceI possession of the sameWhen in 2015 M/s. Greater [Golco]da EsLates Private [Limited]and others tried to [interfere]ith petitioner's [peaceful]possession and enjoYment [over the]aid land, such attempts [to]dispossess him [forcefully ][were ][legiti]tely resisted and rePelledOn noticing [petitioner's strong ][res]tance and considering [his]possession over the said [land, ] Greater Golconda [Estates]Private Limited and others [decided]amicably settle the [matter]with petitioner. So also [petitioner]alized the fact that [though]he was in [peaceful ]Possession [a]d enjoyment of [the ][said]properfy, the flow of [title ][bY ] [s]Greater Golconda [Estates]Private Limited [and ][others ][was al]lound to be legallY-valid [in]the eye of [law, ][as ][such ]Petitioner [h]d agreed for the [proPosal of]M/s Greater [Golconda ][Estates ][Pri]ate Limited and [others ][to]settle the matter [bY ][waY ][of ][comPr][ mise ][as ][it ][would ][be ][in ][the] I I best interest of both the [parties and the ][same ][would ][result ][not]only in a legally-valid title but [also ][peaceful ][possession ][and]enjoyment. With this common [understanding, ][a ][Dced ][of]Setllement bearing Document No. [2630 ][of 2016 ][dat'cd]1O.03.2Oi6 was executed between the [parties, rt'hereunder it]vvas agreed that in respect of land [in ][Survey ][No. ][80/D,]admeasuring Acs. 5O-0O Guntas, [an ][extent ][ol ][Acs. ][25 ] Cuntas is allotted in [petitioner's favour ][in ][lieu of ][his ][peaccful]possession and enjoyment, It is also [pertinent ][to note ][that ][in]the entire Deed of Settlement dated [10.03.2016 ][there ][is ][no]mcntion about petitioner parting with [Rs.30 ][0O lakhs ][as]claimed by the 1"t respondent. The [contents ][of ][the ][said]scttlement deed reveal that the extent [was parted ][with ][petitioner]in resolution of a dispute between the [parties. It ][rvas ][also ][not ][in]dispute that when the claim made by [Telangana ][State ][and]Telangana State Waqf Board over the subject [property ][and ][tried]to interfere with the peaceful possession and occupation [of]petitioner, claiming title through the Gazette notification andproceedings i.e. Telangana State Gazette Part II bearlng No 79dated 01/l|l2ol4, wherein Munthaqhab entered in [Book ][of]Endou,ment, Volume II at Page No 159 at Sl. No 37 in F.No-16/RR/Reg/2013 dated 13 I 12 12013 was published, petitionerwas constrained to file Writ Petition No.12548 of 2020 against ll ll the Wakf Board and others. This Cort after hearing the matterat length, vide its Common Order inW.P. Nos. 2OTOZ of 2018,9709 of 2O2O and 12548 of 2O2O alloed the same wiLh costs ofat length, vide its Common Order inW.P. Nos. 2OTOZ of 2018,9709 of 2O2O and 12548 of 2O2O alloed the same wiLh costs ofRs. 50,0O0/- to each of petitionerso be paid by the Srate ofTelangana and Telangana and the Telangana Stateaqf Board. The CommonOrder in W.p. Nos. 2OZO7 of 2Ot8, g09 of 2O2O and 12548 ot2O20 was challenged before the Hon,be Supreme Court of Indiavide SLP Nos.7l54 of 2021, Z19S ofO21,7186-7t88 of 2O21and the 2O20 was challenged before the Hon,be Supreme Court of Indiavide SLP Nos.7l54 of 2021, Z19S ofO21,7186-7t88 of 2O21and the Hon'ble Supreme Court hasranted a status quo videorder dated S.Z .2021 in all respectsrtaining to the propertyorder dated S.Z .2021 in all respectsrtaining to the propertycovered under the Settlement Deed ad the said matter is stilipending for adjudication.9. A perusal of the statementperusal of the statementthe statementstatementdated 9. A perusal of the statementperusal of the statementthe statementstatementdated 9. A perusal of the statementperusal of the statementthe statementstatementdated 12.01.2O22 showsthat the 1"t respondent had called petitoner on 12.0],.2022 andrecorded the statement of petitioner bvsrng certain queries. Itls apposrte to extract the relevant portioof the statement dated12.O1.2022. " e,No.l [1. ]Kindly furnish the detas perttnent to the purchaseof immovable property of 25 acres of land atIlafeezpet Village stated inresponse to Q.No.7Ans: Here my family includes my wiSmt. K. Haritha and mybrothers namely K. Naveen Kumar, K. Rajendraumar and K. Madhavi, w/o.K. Kiran Kumar.My family gave money of approxRs. 1 Lakh per acre totaljngto Rs.3O lakh (approx.) in cash for an undividedhare of 30 acres of land in-year [2005 ]06 to numerous tenants who claimeas title holders. I am notqqare of the transactions between the other twoarties and the tenants. Theregistratron of Acs.72_00 of land happened atRO Kukatpally and at the n I time of registration, all the three parties and numberotrs tenants \\ l.roclaimed as title holdcrs \!ere all present during execution of thc Salc deeds 10. [t is also apposite to extract the relevanr portion .rsto [ron- thc 1.1 respondent put the same in the impugned showcause notict: nearly after three years without there being zrnymention about thc delay caused in issuing the said notice. " 2. AND WHEREAS, in your sworn statemcnt recordeduncler Scr:tion 19 of the Act on ['12.1.2022, ]you stated that -\'ou acqtriredthe aforesai(l 25 acres of land during the linancial year 2005 06 lor alotal considriration of 3O lakh, purportedly paicl entirelv in cash. Youfurther slated that thc land.was purchased from certain tenants whowere rn possession based on revenue records (Faisal Patti) and HigtlCourt or(ler No. 107/70 (197O). Horvever, despite your assertion, n()documcntar! evidence has been submitted by your regarding the sourccol Rs.30 laklr allegedlv paid by you." I 1. It is the specific contention of petitioner that hcunderstood that he uras saddled with the impugned notice withpre-mcditation as thc impugned show cause notice refers to thepre-mcditation as thc impugned show cause notice refers to thestatement dated 12.O1.2022 referring that he paid Rs.3O.0OLacs as consideration for acquiring Acs. 25 of land in Sy.No.80,Hafeezpet Vrllage, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy DistrictHafeezpet Vrllage, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District$,hich \vas ltever sworn or stated by petitioner as such theimpugned show cause notice dated 04.O3.2025 was issued u,itha pre lneditated mind only to rope in the petitioner under theimpugned show cause notice dated 04.O3.2025 was issued u,itha pre lneditated mind only to rope in the petitioner under theprovisions of Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act,1988 1988 --- I --- I 12. On a bare perusal ofhe impugncd show causcnotice, it is clearly discernable thate 1"t respondent refers tosomcthing which has never beentated by petitioner in hisstatement dated 12.1.2022 given bfore the l.t respondent interms of Section 19 of the Act, 1988The answer given to qucryNo. I 1 of the statement dated 12.1.222 does not pertain to thesubjcct property i.e. Acs.25.O0rther the statement alsospeaks about the family members i.petitioner's wife, brothersof petitioner giving Rs. 1 lac per are for undivided share ofAcs.3O.OO of land in 2OO5-2006o numerous tenants whoclaimed title holders and petitionenever stated that he hadpersonally given Rs.30.0O lakhs tows sale consideration Whereas Acs. 25.00 reerTedto in the impugnedshow cause notice dated 04.032025 is related to thetransaction i.e. the Settlement deedated 10.03.2016 and thereis no mention about Acs.25.O0 ofland being acquired withconsideration of Rs.3O Lac by petitiner in the entire s[atementof thc petitioner recorded by ths 1"trespondent oo 12.01.2022or the Settlement Deed dated 10.O.2016. Therefore, it is veryclear that the l"t respondent is tng to confront pet it ioncrshow cause notice dated 04.032025 is related to thetransaction i.e. the Settlement deedated 10.03.2016 and thereis no mention about Acs.25.O0 ofland being acquired withconsideration of Rs.3O Lac by petitiner in the entire s[atementof thc petitioner recorded by ths 1"trespondent oo 12.01.2022or the Settlement Deed dated 10.O.2016. Therefore, it is veryclear that the l"t respondent is tng to confront pet it ioncrg,ith definite conclusions of his alled guilt, as such, the showCAU SCnotice gets vitiated by unirness and bias and thesubsequent proceedings become an [t] le ceremonyCAU SCnotice gets vitiated by unirness and bias and thesubsequent proceedings become an [t] le ceremony I 1A, r rs settled principle oI lau, rhat quasi_judicialauthorities, u,hile acting in exercise of its statutorv power mustact fairh_ and mlrst act with an shou open mind while initiating thecaus_ procceding. A show cause noticc ri; meant to the givcperson proceerled against a reasonable opportunity ofmaking his objection against the proposecl charges rndicated inthe notice . At the stage of show cause n(procceded against -u", n. be ,^,r-.:" told ,LaL{se [otlce' the ][person]the charges against him so thathe can take his crelens ;e and prove his innocencc. At that the authority stage,issuing the charge sheet/show cause notice,cannot. instcad of tcll.tng him the charges, conlront him q,ithdefinite conclusions of his alleged guilt. If that is done, as hasbeen done it-r the present case, the entire proceeding initiated the shorv bycatrse rtotice gets vitiated by unfairness and bias thc subsequent pr()ccedings become a1 idle ar_rdceremony.i5. ln Siemerrs Jndia u. fjtrrte of Maharashtra, theHon,ble Supreme Court had held as under IO. drscretion:rry juri",r,.,i.;r';' Althoughordinarily a writ court maro show cause -.n o.r,r"r'o1l.J.:til::,,::,rress ,,," -tl"ttu'l'n, [t ]inter alla jurisdictio. appears to lbeen without"" [n"" ][,*.,,'n.,"same ]o1l^'" or uttar pradesh v rlralrrn ,l sharma and co", i., o". iJ,ila"".,l,J"" includins stateDirector and Anolher,. M"hnt Glruram ;;;;;"" e'+sl speciai44o) andUnion of rrdia and : "a";;;;r",,'sc i(2004) 3 sccscALE 262r, brt ,h" q,,."tio1r:other ni'"'n [v ][-r"t";;";#er ]ansre, vizjhen a norice ^r" [. ..:;:;.:.."[T j':::H]u. ,,o;##nr,r" is,"." uirh pre-meditation, a w;,;':,,:; ."'.:'"d ,,en if the courts directs th- -,,t atutorl [petition ]\vourdautltorit) to hear the matter afresh, ordinarilv suhearing would not yield anyfruitfut purpose [See K.J. Shephard and Oers v. Union of India and Others[(1987) [4 ] [431 ]AIR 1988 SC 686]. rr isevident in the instant case thatthe respondent has clearly made up its minIt explicitly said so both in thecounter affidavit as also in its purported shcause_ 11. The said principle hasfolloued b1 rhis Court in V.C.Banaras Hrndu University and Ors- vShrit [2006 (6) SCALE 66], staring to hear the matter afresh, ordinarilv suhearing would not yield anyfruitfut purpose [See K.J. Shephard and Oers v. Union of India and Others[(1987) [4 ] [431 ]AIR 1988 SC 686]. rr isevident in the instant case thatthe respondent has clearly made up its minIt explicitly said so both in thecounter affidavit as also in its purported shcause_ 11. The said principle hasfolloued b1 rhis Court in V.C.Banaras Hrndu University and Ors- vShrit [2006 (6) SCALE 66], staring " The Vice Chancellor appears tove made up his mind to imposethe punishmenr of dismissal on the Respondenterein- A post decisional hcaringthe punishmenr of dismissal on the Respondenterein- A post decisional hcaringgiven br rhc High Court was illusory in this case.In K.l Sllephard& Ors. etc. etc_ v. Union of IndiaOrs. [AIR 1988 SC 6861, rhisCourt held:In K.l Sllephard& Ors. etc. etc_ v. Union of IndiaOrs. [AIR 1988 SC 6861, rhisCourt held: It is common experience that once a decisionbeen taken, there is tendency touphold rt and a representation may not really yielany fruitful purposc. "[Sec [also ][Shri ][Shekhar ]Ghosh v. Union of Indiar., 2006 (1I) SCALE 363 andRalesh Kumar & Ors. v. D.C.l.T. & Ors., 2006 {t 1scALE 4091 12. A bare perusal of the oer impugned before the HighCourt as also the statements made before uin the counter affidavit filed bythe respondents, we are satished that thelatutory a u thoritSz has alreadyappliecl its mind and has formed an opon as regards the liability orCourt as also the statements made before uin the counter affidavit filed bythe respondents, we are satished that thelatutory a u thoritSz has alreadyappliecl its mind and has formed an opon as regards the liability orotherwise of the appellant_ If in passing thethe respondent has alreadyderermined the liability of the appellant andonly question which remainsfor its consideration is quantification therethe same does not remain inthe reahn o[ a show cause notice. The wpetilion, in our opinion. uasmiiintainable".for its consideration is quantification therethe same does not remain inthe reahn o[ a show cause notice. The wpetilion, in our opinion. uasmiiintainable". t6In SBQ Steels Ltd vs.mrnissioner o:f Custo'?l.s,Guntur, the Division Bench of this Crt held as under: 16- The above passages in te impugned notice indicatethat there is a lot of substance in the contions of the petitioncr. Nodoubt, at some of the ptaces in the showcause notice the respondentdoubt, at some of the ptaces in the showcause notice the respondenthas also used the words "prima facie,, andappears" suggesting that hisconclusion is only tentative but not finalr conclusive but the overallimpression one gets from a reading of thehow cause notice is that theconclusion is only tentative but not finalr conclusive but the overallimpression one gets from a reading of thehow cause notice is that therespondent has predetermined the issue. 17. It is settled principle olaw that a quasi judicialauthoritv, while acting in exercise of its stutory power must act fairlyand rnust act with an open mind rvhilinitiating the show causepro.eedrng. A show cause nolice is meanlgive the person proceecled I I I I against a reasonable opportunity [of ][making ][his ][objection ][against ][the]proposed charges indicated in the [notice At the ][stage ][of ][show ][cause]notice, the person [proceeded ]against [must ][be ][to)d ][the ][charges against]him so that he can take his [defence ][and ][prove ][his ][innocellce. ][At ][that]stage, the authorit,\' issuing [the charge sheet/show cause notice, cannot,]instead of lelling him the charges, [confront him rvith ][dealnite]conclusions of his atleged [guilt ][If ][that ][is ][done, ][as ][has ][been ][done ][in ][the]present case, the entire proceeding initiated by [the ][shorv cause notice]gets vitiated by unfairness and bias and the [subsequent ][proceedings]become an idle ceremony. 18. In Oryx Fisheries s case [(supra), the Supreme ][Court ][held:] I against a reasonable opportunity [of ][making ][his ][objection ][against ][the]proposed charges indicated in the [notice At the ][stage ][of ][show ][cause]notice, the person [proceeded ]against [must ][be ][to)d ][the ][charges against]him so that he can take his [defence ][and ][prove ][his ][innocellce. ][At ][that]stage, the authorit,\' issuing [the charge sheet/show cause notice, cannot,]instead of lelling him the charges, [confront him rvith ][dealnite]conclusions of his atleged [guilt ][If ][that ][is ][done, ][as ][has ][been ][done ][in ][the]present case, the entire proceeding initiated by [the ][shorv cause notice]gets vitiated by unfairness and bias and the [subsequent ][proceedings]become an idle ceremony. 18. In Oryx Fisheries s case [(supra), the Supreme ][Court ][held:] "31. It is of course Lrue lhaL rhe show cause notice [cannot ][be read hyper-]technically and it is [rvetl ]settled [th2rt ]it [is ][to ][be ][read reasonably. ][But ][one ][thing ][is]clcar thal lvhilc readrng a shorv [cause noLicc the person ][who is subject ][ro ][it ][must]get an impression that he lvill gct an eflective [opporturrit]' ][to ][rebut ][the]allegations containcd in the sho$' cause [noticc ][and ][prove ][hrs innocence. ][If ][on ][a]reasonablc reading of a shbw causc [notice ]a [pcrson ][of ordinary ][prudence ][gets]the feehng that his reply to [thc sho$ ][cause ][notice ][will ][be ][an ][empty ][cercmony]and hc wrll mercly knock bis [hcad against the ][impenetrable ][u'all ][ot ][pre.judged]opinron, such a sholv cause noticc [does ][not ][commence ][a ][farr ][procedure]especially when it is isslred in a [quarsi-;udicial proceeding ][undcr ][a ][stalutory]regulation which [promises ]to [give ][the ][person ][procecded ][againsl ][a ][reasonable]opporLunity ol delen(:c- 32. Thercfore, rvhile issuing a sho$'callse [notice, ][the ][authorities must ][take]care to manifcsLljr keep an open [mrnd ][as ][they ][are to ][act ][fairly in ][adjudging ][the]guilt or otherwise of Lhe [person proceeded ]against [and specially u'hen ][he ][has ][the]power to take a punitive stcp against the [person ][after ][glving ][him a ][show ][cause]noticc. 33. The princrple that [justice ][musl ][not ][only ][be done ][but it ][must eminentll]appear Lo be done as [rvcll rs equaliy applicable ][to ][quasi-Judrcial proceeding ][if]such a procecding has to inspire [confidence ][in ][the ][mind ][of those ][who arc subject]to it-' 19. In Siemens Ltd. s case [(supra), ]the Supreme Court [held:] "9. Althor-rgh ordinarily a \\'r1t court may not exercisc its discretionaryJurisdiction [in ][enlertaining ][a writ ][petrtion ][questronlng ][a ][notice ][to ][show ][cause]unless the same rnter aha appears to have been withou [t ][jurisdlction ][as ][has been]held by rhis Court in some decrsions including State of U.P. v. Brahm DatlSha.ma {1987 (2) SCC 1791, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Chouse [2004 [(3)]SCC 44Ol and Union o[ India v. I(unrsetty Satyanarayana 12006 [(12) ] 28],but Lhe [quesLion ]herern has to be consiclered from a diflerent [angle ][viz., when ][a] noticc is rssued \1th prcmeditation, a wrirtiLion would be maintainable. lnsuch ar1 evcn ii t}re court directs the statory authority to hear the matrerafresh, ordinarily such hcaring would notld any frurtful purposc. {See K.lShcphard v. Urlion of Indra 1987 (4) SCC 41]. It is evident in the instant casethat rhe respondent has cleariy made up imind. It explicitly said so both rnLhc countcr-affid:rvrt as also in its purportcdhow cause notice.10. lhc said princrple has been followed byis Court in V.C., Banaras HinduUniversit-\,-' v. Shrikant l(2006) I I SCC 421, sting (SCC p. 60, paras 48-49)"48. [The ][Vi<:c ][Chancellor appears ][to ][have]dc up his mind to impose thepunishment of dismrssal on thc respondenhercin. A post-decisional hearinggLvcn bv thc High Coult vras illusory in this c49. In K.J Shephard v Union of India [1987(4) SCC 4311 this Court hcld (SCCp. 44 9. para l6ll It rs common expcncnce LhaL once a deon has been taken, therc is atendcnc]' to uphold it and a representationmay not really yield an1' frurrfulpurposc." 11. A bare perusal of theer impugned belore the HighCourt as also the statements madere us in the cou n ter-a flldavilhled b1' the respondents, we are satisfid that the statutory authorityhas alreadl' applied its mind and has foed an opinion as regards thetiabilit]' or othenvise of the appellantlf in passing the order therespondent has already determined thebility of the appellant and theonly question rvhich remains for itsnsideration is quantificationthereof, the same does not remain in therealm of a show cause noticeThc [q,rit ]pelition, in our opinion, was mtainable. ["] 20. In Rajam Industries (P)d.'s case (supra), the IMadras]High Court followed the above decisionand held that where a sho\cause notice quantified the amount oftral Excise duty not paid b]the petitioner therein under various hds and also stated that thepetitioner therein was liable to pay penand interest, the said showcause notice has to be set aside insofarit relates to the quantificationof the amount liable to be paid by thetitioner therein towards [the]difference of the excise duty and the obations made therein that thepetrtioner had clandestinely removed thegoods. It held that when therespondents had arrived at the [quantum]of excise duty stated to [have]been evaded by the [petrtioner ][in ][the ][sh]cause notice by misusing theSSI excmption obtained [by ][it, ][nothing]mains for them to determineaftcr the petitioner [filed its ][response ][to ][t]show cause notice. 21. In Shakti Me-Dor Ltd. s case (supra), [3ztja] Tempo Ltd. scase (supra). Punjab Bone N{rlls case (supra) and in CharminarNonwovens Ltd. s cases (supra), cited by the respondent s counsel, it hasbeen held thar at the stage of sho\\ cause notice, a rvrit petition shouldnot be entertainecl !there su<:h shon, cause notice is not $'ithoutjurisdiction. lt !!as held that the conlentions in the show cause noticeshould be accepted as true and after the petitioner submits its replythereto, the adjudicating authority !rould dccide the mattcr. It was alsoheld that the High Court or thc Supreme Court should be approachedonly after exhaustrng the remedies provided under the slatute. Similarview has also been expressed in Dunlop Indra Ltd s case (supra).However, these cases did not deal u ith a situation like the 1rresent onewhere the shon'cause notice issued b]'the respondent is challenged onthe ground that it is issued nith premedilation. In Siernens Ltd.'s case(supra), the Supreme Court has clearlr clarified that although ordinarrll.a writ Court may not exercise its discretronary jurisdiction inentertaining a rvrit petrtion qucstioning a notice to sholv crlusc unlessthe same inter alia appears to have bcen !vithout jurisdiction, when thenotice is issued with prcmeditiltion, houever, a writ pet[ion rvould bemaintainable. 22. ln our vlew, the impugned shorv cause notice by use of thewords "it is clear" at variotts places as pointed out above clearl]' suggestspredetermination by the respondent of the liability of the petitioner. Thefact that it even quantified the amount of Cenvat duty \ rongly availed ofby the petitioner allegedll . corrrrborales lhis vierv. 22. ln our vlew, the impugned shorv cause notice by use of thewords "it is clear" at variotts places as pointed out above clearl]' suggestspredetermination by the respondent of the liability of the petitioner. Thefact that it even quantified the amount of Cenvat duty \ rongly availed ofby the petitioner allegedll . corrrrborales lhis vierv. 23. Following the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ory.xFisheries case (supra), Sremens [-td.'s case (supra) and M/s. Rajamlndustries Ltds case (supra), rve therefore set aside thr: irnpugned sho$cause notice issued by the respondent with a dircction to the respondentto issue a fresh show cause notice clearl_v indicating the issues on lvhichprima facie the petitioner appears to have availed of the Cenvat creditallegedly without justification. While issuing such shou causc notice,the respondent should ensure that it does not indicate anypremeditation or prejudgment l)v the respondent. In case an1, strch freshshow cause noticc is issued br the respondent, the respondcnt shallalso fLrrnish the material on the basis of $,hich the show (]ause notice isissued and give reasonablc opportunitl to the petitioncr to filc its objections with supporting material afrom personal hearing (ifsought by the petitioner) and then passa reasoned order in accordancewith law."17. In view of the settledlaw referred to supra, thisCourt finds that the present Writtition is maintainable sinceon the bare perusal of the imped show cause notice itreveals that the same was rssuewith pre-meditated mind.Further, this Court does not wat to mention the multiplejudgments on rhe said issue. ncdless to mention that thejudgments referred to supra r.l'ouldufhce18. [t is most pertinentmention that when theStanding Counsel is pbsed with thspecilic question as to thepre-mediLated mind in referring tobout the consideration partof Rs.30 lakhs for acquiring Ac25.00 in Survey No-8O ofHafeezpet Village1nrmpugned shcause notice, when thesame is not reflecting in the staent dated 12.01.2022, nopositive response has been receid tiy this Court from theStanding Counsel despite repeatedueries raised in that regard19. Further, learned Stanng Counsel fairly concededto get the matter remanded to th1.t respondent to conductfresh enquiry in accordance with 1w. Following the [judgments]of the Hon'ble Supreme Court andivision Bench of this Courtreferred to supra, this Court linthat the impugned [show]cause [notice ][is ][liable to ]be set asidas the said notice, [cannot,]h- --\ I instead [of ][telling ][him the ][charges' ][confront ][rvith ][definite]conclusions [of ][his ][alleged ][guilt ][lf that ][is done' ][as ][has ][been done]in the [present ][case' ][the entire ][proceedings ][initiated ][bv the ][show]cause [notice ][gets ][vitiated ][by ][unfairnes5 ][and ][biers ][and ][the]subsequent [proceedings ][become ][an ][idle ][ceremonY]It was [specifically ][pleaded ][bv ][petitioncr ][that ][the]20outcomeof the [would ][determine ][whcther ][thc ][property ][is]private, [Government ][or ][Waqf ][and ][without ][detcrmination of ][title]Lreing [taken ][place ][with ][respect ][to ][subject property and when ][the]mattef [iS ][sub-juice ][before ][the ][Hon,ble Supreme ][Court, ][initiating]proceedings [under the ][Prohibition ][oI ][Benjamin ][Properq/]Transactions [Act, ][1988 ][is uncalled for and ][is ][untcnable ][in ][larv']This Court [though' ][convinced ][with the ][said ][contention ][of]petitioner [as sound ][and ][reasonable' ][not ][going ][into ][the ][same ][in]viewofremandingthematterbysettingasidetheshowcausenotice [on ][the ground ][of ][pre-meditation']21. In view [of the ][categorical ][finding of ][this ][Court ][that]show cause [notice ][being issued ][with ][a pre meditated ][mind' ][this]Court [is ][not inclined ][to ][go ][into ][the various ][other ][grounds ][raised]by petitioner [and ][petitioner ][is at ][liberty ][tc ][raise ][all ][the]objeclions [including ][lurisdiction of ][the 1* ][respondent ][as ][and]when the [oc('asion for ] [he same ][arises'] II II ned [show cause ][notlce]aaIn the [result' ][the imPu]mons [dated ][20 ]['O3 ]['2025]and [conscquenL su]dated [04'03 ][2O25]ide [u'ith ][liberty to the ][1st]resPondent [are ][set-]issued [bY ][the ][1st]in accordance [with ][law-]to [conduct enquiry ][afres]resPondentenl, [the ][1sr lq5Pondcnt]that [in ][the]Needless [to mentlon]a fresh [en]iry, [they shall ][ensure]chooses [to ][conduct]in ali [resPects ][including]reasonable [opportunity ][to ][peLitlone]biased [consideration ][of ][all]personal [hearing ][and a ][Pragmatic ][u]y Petirionerthe [objections/ ][legat ][grounds ][raised]ons, [the ][Writ ][Petition ][ts]With [the ][above ][drrec]23 23 neous [APPlicadons'][ if ][anY] allowed [No costs]MisceiiConsequentlY'24 55and [closed]"Yra11 A.,.?'o'*T [iS:S^H]SECTION PYI/I'TRUE [C] ssista[nt ][comm][issioner of]Prohibit[ion Unit Hyderaba][d] ssistaTone[r][o]fncomTax, [T]Prohibitransactioransactio1T3n eh1coo[me][As]^rdJ[s]FT[ st]loa[a]x[o][nt][r][ Aa][n][ C][o]a [v][m][a][n][ a]k[m]s[ SS][ B]t[o][ft ce]haf[r][an][ B]nco[ B][ena][m][a][m][S]hTex, rbagh [APProv][H]ing Bhavanerabad [Auth]orityBas[-][ 500 ][heerbagh]Benamt[004.]2345TTtaHTooh[yd]hen[e]ne[n]ee[e]J[S][S]o nt c[r][c][a][a][e][ct]cC[b d][c]a[ o][re]to Mto[Co][n][ta][S][S][mm][ry][ Pro][R]S[ U][ N]R[ S]h[nlon][S][Q]Pb[ o][ H] tRAV[ne][ o][on]P[r]L[ o]RAVU[E]nd[e]J[n]A a[N]E[ R]a[ R][A]Erd[E][d]N[e][ o]DF KloDUn[e]AaYakar[ N]todRvo[o]Prth UactP[B]eUtoto[ o]Utoto[TY a][c]kPUNewC[[o]]1[L][ CIT][D][e][ h][o][R]1I[[ GE]][[N]][ RA]n00[[N]][ RA]1[[R][ G][A][D]] [[ G][A][D]][ca][[A][D]][[D]]2345TTtaHTooh[yd]hen[e]ne[n]ee[e]J[S][S]o nt c[r][c][a][a][e][ct]cC[b d][c]a[ o][re]to Mto[Co][n][ta][S][S][mm][ry][ Pro][R]S[ U][ N]R[ S]h[nlon][S][Q]Pb[ o][ H] tRAV[ne][ o][on]P[r]L[ o]RAVU[E]nd[e]J[n]A a[N]E[ R]a[ R][A]Erd[E][d]N[e][ o]DF KloDUn[e]AaYakar[ N]todRvo[o]Prth UactP[B]eUtoto[ o]Utoto[TY a][c]kPUNewC[[o]]1[L][ CIT][D][e][ h][o][R]1I[[ GE]][[N]][ RA]n00[[N]][ RA]1[[R][ G][A][D]] [[ G][A][D]][ca][[A][D]][[D]] tPPeUtotoC[[o]]1[[o][R]][[R]][[ GE]][[N]][ RA]EL 5nePE6[o]o[n]F[e][ C]ND[c][ to][ S]Ad[[R][ G][A][D]] [[ G][A][D]][ca][[A][D]][[D]]ePU[C])7Two[C][D][ Co][p][ ES]6[o]o[n]F[e][ C]ND[c][ to][ S]Ad[[R][ G][A][D]] [[ G][A][D]][ca][[A][D]][[D]]ePU[C])7Two[C][D][ Co][p][ ES] SA LS I HIGH COURT DATED:2810512025 ORDER WP.No.15382 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. Y' 1HE4 rs.2ffit'.,/- t;'