Voith Turbo Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Central Tax
Original PDF →Facts
Voith Turbo Private Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an order-in-appeal dated February 29, 2024, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-II), the first respondent. The petitioner sought to declare the impugned order void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of natural justice and constitutional provisions. The petition also sought a stay on the operation of the impugned order. The respondents included the Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-II), the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, and the Union of India through the Ministry of Finance. The matter was heard by the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad.
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition based on a consensus reached between the parties. As agreed, the petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the tax liability as assessed by the Assessing Officer with the Department within four weeks from the date of the order, if not already deposited. The petitioner was also directed to approach the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) within three months from its constitution/establishment. The Tribunal is to decide the second appeal in accordance with the law. Subject to the deposit of 10% of the tax liability within the stipulated time, no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner until the Tribunal's decision. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. There were no orders as to costs.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order-in-appeal bearing OIA No. HYD-GST-SC-AP2-416-2023-24 dated February 29, 2024, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-II) is void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of the principles of natural justice, Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued that the impugned order suffered from illegality, arbitrariness, lack of jurisdiction, and violated principles of natural justice and constitutional rights. The petitioner sought to set aside the order. The respondents, represented by their respective counsel, did not present specific arguments against the petitioner's claims in the provided text. Instead, during the course of the hearing, the parties reached a consensus.
Sections Cited
CGST/TGST Act, 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER I I
Customs aPPearing through respondents No.1 to 3 and counsel for resPondent No'4' AND THE HON'BLE SRI JIISTICE G.M.MOHITIDDIN \lrrit Petition No.2558O of 2O25 ORDER: Heard Mr.P.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Dominic Fernandes' learned Senior Standing CounselfortheCentralBoardoflndirectTaxesand video conferencing for Mr.B.Mukherjee, learned
During the course of hearing' learned counsel for the parties . reached to a consensus' It is agreed that this petition may be disposed of in terms of order passed in W.P.No.36OO of 2024 dated 22'02'2024'
Accordingly, as agreed, the Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to deposit lOolo of the tax liabiutyasassessedbytheAssessingofficerwiththe Department, if not already deposited' within four weeks from today. The petitioner shall approach the Goods and t I 7
) Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') within three months from the date of its constitution/ establishment. The Tribunal shall decide the second appeal in accordance with law. Further, subject to depositing LOo/o of the tax liability within aforesaid time, if not already deposited, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner till the decision of the Tribunal in the second appeal. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. .M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ISTANT //II SECTION OFFICER To,
The Joint Commissioner of Central tax, L.B Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad , GST Bhavan, 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. PMK The Assistant commissioner of central rax, Amberpet Division, 9ecunderabad com missionerate 3-4-1 1gl2, Elegant eo irice auiio ing, Ramanthapur, Hyderdbad-S0O 01 3 The Assistant commissioner Circle Vl, Audit-ll commissionerate, Door No. 1- 9_84Bl-20,21, sanvi Yamuhda pride, Krithika Layout, Madhapur, rivoeiioao- 500081 ut The Secretary, U ni ofi 1$'ilnU*", trrt i n istry of Fi nance, one cc to M/s.p.V.effiao ASSoC|ATES, Advocate. [opUC] one cc to sRl DoMlNlc FERNANDES, Senior standing counsel for cBlc. loPUCl One CC to SRI B.MUKI-IERJEE, Advocate. [OpUC] Two CD Copies. ''} BSK (t
I I HIGH COURT DATED:0110912025 ORDER 6 .j zoDir M O ft 'i i-l l:. ,.,i. ( 1., ,ti: il,.;t l. + l, .y'' i:. a- WP.No.25580 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CqSTS l.v c1--r 'i::::_: - _:.. _---- ..' I rf I
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.