Aavya Enterprises vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax

WP/28017/2025HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01054397202522 September 2025Bench: APARESH KUMAR SINGH,G.M. MOHIUDDIN5 pages

For Petitioner: SRI NTSHANTH RAO KNFor Respondent: SRI K. SAt AKARSH FOR, SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECtr, A.L GCVERNfuIENT PLEADER FOR STATE T, AX

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, Aavya Enterprises, is seeking a writ of mandamus to declare their entitlement to file an undertaking manually as they are unable to do so online. The issue arises from the withholding of a refund of pre-deposit amounting to Rs. 22,59,314/-. This refund was due after the petitioner succeeded in an appeal. The revenue authorities are withholding the refund, citing the procedural requirement of submitting an undertaking in Form GST PMT-03 electronically, which the petitioner cannot access. A show cause notice was issued on July 10, 2025, regarding the processing of the refund claim, and an order was passed directing the petitioner to submit the electronic undertaking. The petitioner approached the High Court due to their inability to comply with this online requirement.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition based on the submission made by the respondents. The respondents stated that the petitioner could submit the undertaking in Form GST PMT-03 manually, and it would be processed in accordance with law. In light of this submission, the petitioner's counsel agreed to pursue the matter before the authority. Therefore, the Court did not delve into the broader legal questions regarding the validity of the online-only requirement or the constitutional challenges raised by the petitioner. The primary outcome was the acceptance of the respondents' offer to allow manual submission of the undertaking, thereby resolving the immediate procedural hurdle for the petitioner. No specific finding was made on the constitutional validity of the online portal's limitations or the principles of natural justice in this context, as the matter was settled by the procedural concession.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to file an undertaking manually in Form GST PMT-03, given their inability to access the online portal, to facilitate the refund of pre-deposit under Section 54(11) and (12) of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that their inability to file the undertaking online renders the procedural requirement void, illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21, and 265 of the Constitution of India, as well as the principles of natural justice and authority of law. They sought a direction to allow manual filing and refund of the pre-deposit. Respondents' contention: The respondents, through the Special Government Pleader for State Tax, submitted that the petitioner can submit the undertaking in Form GST PMT-03 manually, and it would be processed in accordance with the law.

Sections Cited

Section 54(11), Section 54(12)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

i. [ 3488 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI. APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. TVIOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION NO: 28017 OF 2025 Between: AAVYA ENTERPRISES, Eastern Pcrtion, 4111A, lndustrial Development Area, Balanagar, Rangai'eddy, Telangana, 500072 Represented by its Proprietor Amit iVittal, S/o. Bajranglal lVlittal Aged about 41 Years, Occ. Business R/o. 7 1 6911 4C4, Sai Jyothi Tower, Dharamkaram Road, Ameerpet Hyderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500016 ...PETITIONER AND 4I The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Hyderabad Rural Division, Balanagar Circle, Telangana Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, State of Telangana, C.T. Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad- 500001 State of Telangana, Through Principal Secretary to Government Revenue Department (Comrnercial Tax), Hyderabad, Telangana ..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumsiances stated in th,e affida'zit flleC therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass a writ order or direction, more particularly in nature of a writ of mandamus, declaring that the Petitioner is entitled to file an undertaking manually as well, as he is not in a position to file the undertaking online and directing the Respondent No. 1 to refund the pre-deposit paid by debiting the electronic credit ledger since such non-crediting of ITC citing a procedural requirement is void, illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19, 21, and 265 of the Constitution of 2 3 trrirt-,tii*i'. '. ":t(,r !ndia, violative of principles of natural justice, and without authority of law or other orcler(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NTSHANTH RAO KN Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K. SAt AKARSH FOR SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECtr,A.L GCVERNfuIENT PLEADER FOR STATE T,AX

The Court made the following: ORDER l-.*kd,rli

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI G.M.MOHIUDDIN Writ Petition No.28O17 of 2o25 ORDER: Heard Mr.Nishanth Rao K"N., learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Sai Akarsh, learned counsel appears for Mr.Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appears for the respondents-

Reference is made to the order dated l7-O9.2O25, which reads as under: "Mr.Nishanth Rao KN, learned counsel appears for the petitioner. Mr.swaroop Oorilla, Iearned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appears for the respondents. The refund of the pre-deposit after succeeding in appeal through re-credit to the Electronic Credit ledger of the petitioner for an amount of Rs.22,59 ,314 /- is being withheld, due to non-declaration of an undertaking in Form GST PMT-03. Petitioner is not able to access the portal to submit the said form. Reference is made to Section 54(1 1) and (12) of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 20t7. In fact, a show cause notice has also been issued on 10.07.2025 in respect of processing of the refund claim on which an order has also been passed asking the petitioner to submit the electronic undertaking in Form GST PMT-03, which the petitioner is unable to do. Therefore, it has approached this Court. Learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax prays time to seek instructions. List on 22.09.2025." i: r''

I 2

Learned counsel for the respondents State Tax submits that the petitioner can submit an undertaking in Form GST PMT-03 manually, ',vhich shall be processed in accordance with law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the Iight of the aforesaid submission, the writ petition may be disposed of, so that, the petitioner can pursue the matter before the authority.

In the light of the submissions made by the rearned counsel for the respondents - State Tax, The instant writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shatl stand closed. //// . M. NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ./re SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Hyderabad Rural Division, Balanagar Circle, Telangana

The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, State of Telangana, C.T. Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad- 500001

The Principal Secretary to Government Revenue Department (Commercial Tax), State of Telangana, Hyderabad, Telangana

One CC to SRI NISHANTH RAO K.N., Advocate [OPUC]

Two CCs to SRI SU/AROOP OORIL!-A, Special Government Pleader for State Tax, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

Two CD Copies MP GJP fr*(

't. 2 I JAN 202[ S ORDER WP.No.28017 ot 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION \i HIGH COURT DATED:2210912025 r-tE WITHOUT COSTS '* * Ci i o.tr, \'{ .Jlrr - :J-r1... .a . !, iltlhi ffir. ,.i4ffi,;

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.