M/S. Sri Sai Krishna Enterprises vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax
Original PDF →Facts
M/s. Sri Sai Krishna Enterprises (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original dated December 26, 2023, passed by the Superintendent of Central Tax. This order demanded Rs. 3,09,084 (CGST and SGST) and imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,908 under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, for the financial year 2017-18. The petitioner contended that the adjudication proceedings were initiated without proper service of notice, leading to the demand. Crucially, the petitioner claimed to have already paid Rs. 2,67,300 on July 30, 2018, a payment that was allegedly not considered. A subsequent notice dated October 14, 2025, in Form GST DRC-13, attached the petitioner's bank account. The petitioner sought to declare the impugned order and recovery notice illegal and sought a stay on the recovery proceedings.
Held
The Court noted that the petitioner had provided a payment receipt (Annexure-P6) dated July 30, 2018, showing payment of Rs. 2,67,300, which appeared to be the same amount that was the subject of the show cause notice dated September 25, 2023, for alleged short payment of tax against GSTR-3B. The Court found that, prima facie, the petitioner had paid the amount in question before the adjudication proceedings were initiated. Therefore, the Court directed that the petitioner be allowed an opportunity to file a rectification application in the prescribed form, providing details and proof of payment. The Proper Officer was directed to consider this application in accordance with the law within a reasonable time, preferably within three weeks of its filing, which was to be done within two weeks from the date of the order. The Court disposed of the writ petition accordingly, with no order as to costs. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Court provided a procedural path for resolution.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned Order-in-Original dated December 26, 2023, and the subsequent recovery notice dated October 14, 2025, are illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice due to alleged non-service of proper notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the demand of Rs. 2,67,300, which the petitioner claims to have already paid on July 30, 2018, constitutes double taxation and is therefore impermissible under law? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that it could not participate in the adjudication proceedings due to non-service of proper notice, leading to the imposition of tax liability and penalty. They emphasized that the demand for Rs. 2,67,300 was for an amount already paid, making the demand for the same amount twice an illegality. They relied on the payment receipt (Annexure-P6) as proof of payment. The petitioner requested the court to direct the respondents to consider their representation and drop the recovery notice. Revenue's arguments: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC could not dispute that the amount paid on July 30, 2018, was the same amount alleged in the show cause notice for short payment. However, they submitted that there were no Form GST DRC-03 annexed to show payment of the said amount, and these were subject to verification.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 50, Section 122, Rule 26(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
w IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANCANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.5735 of 2026 DATED: 06.04.2026 Between: IWs. Sri Sai Krishna Enterprises, Rep., by its Proprietor, Mr. Krishna Rao Jupalti, Patanchery, Ranga Reddy District, Sangareddy, Telangana. Petitioner AND The Superintendent of Central Tax, Medchal CGST Comnrissionerate, Miyapur, Hyderabad and 4 others. ... Respondents ORDER: Sri M.V.L. Narasimha Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Dominic F'ernandes, learned Senior Standing counsel fbr Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appears lor respondent Nos. I and2. 2. 'lhe petitioner contends that it could not participate in the adjudication proceedings initiated by show cause notice in For-rn GS'f DRC-0 I dated , I 25.09.2023 under Sections 73(t), 50 and 122 ol'the Central Goods and 2 o Se^,ices -fax Act, 2017 (lor short, "the CGST Act',)/Telangana State Goods and Ser'ices Tax Act, 20 I 7 read rvith relevant rules on account of non-service ol proper notice u hich lead to imposition ol tax liability to rhe tune of Rs.3,09,084/- with inrerest at thc applicable rate under Section 50 and penalty @ lo% .ver the tax amounr in terms of Section 7311) read with Section 122(2)(a) of thc CGSr Acr. However, petitioner has referred to rhc payment receipt at Annexure-l)6 which shows payment ol Rs.2,67,300/- on 30.07.20 rg much before issuancc of the show cause notice on 25.09.2023 which alleged non-payrncnt of 1ax to the sarne amount i.e., Rs.2,67,300/_ in GSTR_38 compared to his tax liabitity in GSTR-l for the period tuly,2ol7 to Marcl.r, 2018. 'lhc order-ir-orisinal is dated 26.12.2023. The second charge related to regular availrncnt ol[{s.41,7tt4l- as ITC in GSTR-3B when compared to ITC available in GSTR-2A. o, issLrance of recovery notice in Form GST DRC- 13. dated I4. 10.2025. upon its banker, petitioner has approached this courr.
Learned counsel fbr the petitioner submits that though representation has been made 1o respondcnt No. I Superintendent of Central Tax, Hyderabad. to drop the order and revoke bank attachment, but no heed has been paid. It is subrnitted that demand of an amount equivalent to l{s.2,67,300r- alreadl, paid as tax on 30.07.2018 under the order-in-original rvould tax thc petitiorc. twice. which is not permissible in law. Therelore, I i I t appropriate direction nray bc issued upon the respondents to consider the w 3 representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and drop the recovery notice, dated 14.10.2025
Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC is not able to dispute that the amount shown to have been paid on 30.07.2018 is the same amount alleged in the show cause notice issued on 25.09.2023 lor alleged non- \ payment of tax in GSTR-3B. He submits that apart lrom the payment receipt, there are no Form GST DRC-03 annexed to show payment olthe said amount These are subject to verification.
Upon hearing leamed counsel for the parties and in the lacts and circumstances of the case, since, prima facie, it appears from Annexure-P6 - Payment Receipt, dated 30.07.2018, that the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.2,67,300/-, which is the subject matter of the show cause notice, dated 25.09.2023, for short payment of tax against GSTR-3B, we are of the view that petitioner be allowed an opportunity to file a rectification application in the prescribed lorm containing the details and proof of payment of tax tnuch earlier than initiation of the adjudication proceedings in order to relieve itself from the tax liability as against the aforesaid amount. [n case, such an application is filed within two weeks, the respondent - Proper Officer would consider it in accordance with law within a reasonable time, preferable, within three weeks thereafter.
4 To PSK TKS
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shatl be no order as to costs. MiscellaneoLrs applications, if any pending, shall stand closed . T.SREENIVAS REDDY TANT REGISTRAR //// ECTION OFFICER
The Superintendent of Central Tax, Patancheru Radgle, Sangareddy CGST Division, Medchal CGST Commissionerate' Miyapur, Hyderabad
The Assistant Commissioner, Sangareddy CGST Division, Medchal CGST C ommission erate, Miyapur, Hyderabad. 3. ine Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, Govemment of lndia, 3rd Floor, Jeevan Deep Building' Sansad Marg, New Delhi-1 10 001 '
The principal Secretary, (Revenue), secretariat, Hyderabad, state of Telangana, s' Tne Manager. lClCl Bank Limited, Vivekanand Nagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.
One CC to SRI M.V.L.NARASIMHA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] T.OneCCtoSRIDOMINICFERNANDES,SENIORSTANDINGCOUNSELFOR CBIC [OPUCI 8. one cb to sRt G.KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY, Advocate [oPUc] g.TwoCCstoGPFORREVENUE,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana'at Hyderabad. [OUT] '
Two CD Copies Z4
HIGH COURT DATED: 0610412026 ORDER WP.No.5735 of 2026 i' .r_ / z. .r,/ <;.-' r-) !la ic(. ti't1 tr*iioa*-,. tiu ,\.{- \i{,\i 3 0 AFH ?[26 '/ ..\(1,i i::r' rrrii:.'l ., _. :---'-, .- ,:..i' .(., 2 .\.7 .2' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS {v v' e) (
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.