M/S. Sri Rama Cement vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Sri Rama Cement, filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court challenging a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated November 25, 2024 (Ref. No. 2D361124026761N), another SCN dated October 21, 2024 (No. 36/2024-25), an order in Form DRC-07 dated February 24, 2025 (Ref. No. 2D360225066703E), and an Order-in-Original (OIO) dated February 14, 2025 (No. 52/2024-25 GST(SUPDT)/Keesara). These actions were passed under Section 73 of the CGST and RGST Act, 2017, by the Superintendent of Central Tax, Keesara Range. The petitioner sought to declare these actions invalid, void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of natural justice and constitutional provisions. The petitioner also sought to condone any delay in approaching the appellate authority.
Held
The Court noted that the petitioner was inclined to avail the appeal remedy. The Court directed that if the petitioner prefers an appeal within a period of two weeks, along with the statutory deposit, the appellate authority would consider the same in accordance with the law. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's challenge to the SCNs and OIO, nor did it decide on the validity of the impugned actions. The issue of whether the impugned SCNs and OIO are invalid, void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of natural justice and constitutional provisions was not adjudicated upon by the High Court. The operative direction was to allow the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy with a direction to the appellate authority to consider the appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Show Cause Notices (SCNs) and the subsequent Order-in-Original (OIO) passed under Section 73 of the CGST and RGST Act, 2017, are invalid, void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned SCNs and OIO are invalid on multiple grounds, including being arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of natural justice and constitutional rights. The petitioner sought liberty to approach the appellate authority and requested the appellate authority to condone any delay in filing the appeal, as the petitioner was pursuing the writ remedy. Respondent's Contention: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC did not oppose the petitioner's prayer to approach the appellate authority but submitted that the appeal might be delayed.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the fc Iiowing: ORDER
t TIIE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.312L9 of 2025 Heard Mr. V. Sai Amit, learned counsel representing Mr. V.Nagendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.2. 2 pra),er: The writ petition has been preferred with the following "For all thc reasons stat, that this Honbre High c,t in the accompanying affidavit, rt is praycd direction more particular urt may be pleased to issue a writ, order, or dccraring tn"t i..rpug.r""ly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus dated 25 11-2,24oo,.,* I t"* bearing Ref' No' 2D361124026761N and impugned ..0.. ',:: sl. wo 36/2024-2s dated 2r_10_2024 zD36o22so;62;..;;. ; ",i';:T. DRc-o7 bearilrts Rer No. 25 GST(SUpDT)/Keesara -- 4vz\)\ auong vnth oIO No. s2/2O24_ cGsr ard "";';.;, ;, dated 74-02-2o25 passed u/s 73 of the arso void, ";r,;.;; ",i;:*" invarid in the eyes or pnncipres of naturar:.,.ti.l w,:h:ut ,;;,";, t;:H TI;: re(r)(sr and ,.r.;l;:.;.e apart from berns viorarrv rstirution .f I"di",; ;ve of Articres I4, onsequen y set t AND ORDER: t --.-.-..-...rr--r -=----_-_-
aside the sarne and pass such further or other order(s1 as this Honble Court ma5, d--em fit and proper in the circumsta_nces of the case arrd prayed for condoning tire delay based on the merits of the r;ase.,,
Howel'er. learned counsel lor the petitioner sr_rbmits that petitioner has other grounds on merits ajso to be raised. Therefore, he rnay be allowed liberty to approach the appellate authority. The appellate authority may be directed to condone the delay, if arry, in approaching it as the petitioner. was also pursuing the writ remedy.
Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC does not oppose the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner to approach the ap,pellate authority. However, he subrnits that the appeal ma1 b: detaYed.
Be that as it may, the petitioner is inclined to avail the appea.l remedy. If he prefers an appeal within a period of trvo weeks with statlrtory deposit, the appellate authoritl' would consider the same' in accordance with law' 6 The Writ Petrtion is, accord'ingli;' tiisposed or there shall be no :rder as to cosLs' F] Orryev<-'r , \
_l Miscellaneous applications pending' if any' ,// The SuPeflntendent of Central Tax. Keesara Ra shall stand .M. NAGAM ISTANT RE G R SECTION OFFICER chal Division B-2- North Block, New Delhi' Union of lndia- closed To, 7713, AntiliaTowers, Sri Sai Enclave' old Bowenpa v 1 1 10 001 3. one CC to SRI V NAGENORA PRASAD' Advocate IOPUCI
ONE CC tO SRI OOH'TIT'IICiENNANDES' ST' SC FOR CBIC IOPUC] uffi o??'!"n::1,1,:l*tttlf+:*X':f "ll-i8j:?lof ffi entnLor
The Secretary' Ministry of Finance'
Two CD CoPies BSR LS q$' 50001 1
HIGH COURT DATED: 1St10t2O2S ORDER WP.No.31219 ctf 2025 oR tAi ,J, q .)?) 10 l,t[tt 20fr D!.se 1IC tf:o DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION' WITHOUT COSI'S til- !o \0 r) rt re fi
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.