M/S Navya Nuchu vs. The State Of Telangana
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
IN I'tIE HIGI-I COURI'I"OR 1'TIE S'I.\TE OT TEI,ANG.{N.{ A'T TI}'DETIAI}TD THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICU SIII APARESH KUN,|T\IT STNGII AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.IVI.I}IOHIUDDTN WRIT PETITION No.36611 of 2025 DATED :23.03.2026 Betlveen: NI/s Navya Nuchu Petitione r AND Thc State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Scheduled Caste Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and eight others ... Respondcnts ORDER: Ms. Lochana S Babu, leamed counsel appears for Ms. Kruthi Kalaga, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr. Ananthula Ravinder, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appears for respondent Nos. I to 5. Mr. Dominic Fernandes, leamed Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of lndirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appears for respondent No.9. 2. The petitioner, a proprietorship firm registered under the t ( provisions of the Central Goods and Sen,ices Tax Act, 201 7,
2 ii-.i , \iirS..;. .';,.-:\l',1 J .r, P \o lo;,'i rl 1025 and the corresponding State Goods and Sen'ices Tax Act, 201-,'(tbr shorl 'the GST Act'), is engaged in the business of providing seruices by r,vay of renting of immovable propefty. lts premises bearing House Nos.4-193, l-19312 and 4-19313, Surv,:y No.906, Main Road, Near Anutex, Malkajgiri, Hyde rabad, is on lease to respondent No.1 from 01.07.2019 for t te purposes of Government's Social Welfare College Boys Hostel. Respondent No.4, District Collector, Hyderabad, is the competent authority to approve rental expenses on behalf of respondent No.1. [t was approved and sanctioned @ Rs.3,36,710/- along with applicable GST per month' Respcndent No.l paid GST @ 18% on the rentals for a period of six months i.e., July, 2019, to December, 2019, which was remitt,:d by the Department to the petitioner. During COVID-2019, this was discontinued. However, the petitioner continrred to remit GST component at its own expense amounting to Rs.16,56,6131-. It submitted a representation dared 1t.03.2022 to respondent No.4 stating that GST remained unpaid owing to lack of sanction since January, 2020. It also made a representation on 08.06.2022 to 3 ilC.J , \i'.rS. Jr & C,\i\l .i ',i ? \,: .lii6 i I o:' lri..l.r respondent No.2 tbr release of outstanding GST @ I8% fiorn Jarruary, 2020, to May, 2022, and November, 2021, to May, 2022. Vide letter dated 20.06.2022, respondent No.2 informed the same to respondent No.3 and that the penalty was being irnposed upon the petitioner as it has the obligation to rentit GST to the Government. It made another representation on 05.08.2022 to respondent No.
Vide letter dated l9.l l .2022, respondent No.2 sought clarification from respondent No.5 as to whether the liability to bear and remit GST on the rent payable for the subject premises rests with the owner or the tenant. However, no response was received. Respondent No.4 revised the rent in respect of the subject property leased out ttl respondent No.l, on 17.01 .2023. Owing to the uncertainty regarding applicability of GST on rental transaction, the petitioner approached the Authority for Advance Ruling (tbr short 'the AAR') under Section 97(l) of GST Act, read rvith Rule 104(l) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short 'the Rules'). Vide order No.0512024 dated 09.02.2024, the AAR held that no direct or immediate nexus exists betrveen the services provided by the petitioner and tlte
1 i:-.. i r.\rS -: .i. (ll,l\.i. .i !:t. P \o J,;;: I I o: .102-> funr:tions entrusted to the municipality under the Tlvelfth Schcdule read r,vith Article 243W of the Constitution of India. lt concluded that the petitioner's services of letting out the irnmrvable property do not qualify for exemption under Notilication No. [ 212017 Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.20 [7 and that the rent paid by respondent No.l does not quali;y fbr exemption and is therefore liable to GST. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 04.042024 under Section 100 of the GST Act read with Rule 106(l ) of the Rules. Horvever, the appellate authority rejected the said appeal on 20.02.2025. The petitioner stated that the rent u1l to June, 2023,, and GST up to December, 2019, had only b,eeo released as per letter dated 13.03.2025 sent to responrlent No.
It filed a Writ Petition No.l 1954 of 2025 before this Court for quashing of the said order dated 20.02.2025. Thereupon, vide order dated 28.04.2025, the Coordinate Bench of this Court while setting aside the order dated 20.02.2025, directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, the appellat,: authority passed order on I I .09.2025 holding that the 5 i.lci ,\{:s..li & c}l\1. J \1 .P '.iu 366 t I o[ 2tl2a) services provided by the petitioner do not qualify for exemption under Notiflcation No.l2 of 2017 dated 28.06.2017. Since the outstanding GST dues were not being paid by the Department, the petitioner has approached this Court for a direction upon respondent Nos.l to 3 to sanction/reimburse the rent along with GST @18% on such rent in a time-bound manner in accordance with the order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the appellate authority.
However, upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, it appears that the representations made by the petitioner at Annexures P.5 and P.30 tbr exemption under notification No.l2 of 2017 - Central 'fax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 are cryptic and do not contain details or supporting documents.
In view of the above, we are inclined to dispose of the instant Writ Petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation before respondent No.l with adequate details, facts and supporting documents in respect of its aloresaid claim. Needless to say that upon receipt of such r ;; 6 ilCJ i \KrS. Jr & G\l\1. J ll P.\o.3661 i ot 2O25 reprosentation, respondent No.l would consider it in acco::dance with law r,vithin a reasonable time preferably rvithin twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that we have not made any comnrent on the merits of the matter. The instant Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. IVliscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed MOHD. ISMAIL PUTY REGISTRAR /// OFFICER To 1 The Prirrcipal Secretary Secreteriat Hyderabad, Scheduled Caste State Of Department na - 500
The Cornmissioner, Scheduled Caste Department,3rd Floor, DSS Bhravan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 028
The Deputy Director, Scheduled Caste Development Department,3rd Floor, DSS Bhavan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 028
The District Collector, Hyderabad District 6-2-10, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad - 500 004
The Conrmissioner Of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad, C.T. Complex, Nampalllr, Hyderabad - 500 001
The Autl'rority For Advance Ruling, C.T. Complex, M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabild - 500 001
The Appellate Authority For Advance Ruling C.T. Complex, M.J. Road, Nampally', Hyderabad - 500 001
The Prin<;ipal Commissioner Of Central Tax, 3rd Floor, Medchal GST Bhavan, 11-4-649,t8, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad - 500 004
The Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes, Malkajgiri Division, Malkajgiri N 1 Circler, 3rd Floor, C.T. Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500 001 10.One CC to Ms. KRUTHI KALAGA, Advocate [OPUC] 1 1 . Two CCs to GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] 12.One CC t,r SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, SENIOR SC FOR CBIC IOPUC] 13.Two CD Copies PSK. ,iO rKS ire&'
, / HIGH COURT DATED ,i2310312026 ORDER WP.No.3,6611 ot 2O25 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 4l+lze T STA 0 L, .,: i '.f,al 0 ii f r;' rir"il ,'" I ! .,I ir t(3
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.