BharatTaxGST

M/S Bhavani Oxides vs. The State Of Telangana

Original PDF →
WP/19362/2025HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01037294202514 August 2025Bench: APARESH KUMAR SINGH,G.M. MOHIUDDIN7 pages
For Petitioner: SRt S.V.PRANAV RAMFor Respondent: sRl swARoOP OORILLA, Special Govt Pleader, for State Tax

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[ 3488 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M, MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION NO: 19362 OF 2025 Between: t!19 Qfr.av_an! Oxides, Rep by its Proprietor Basanthlal Sah, Survey No 63/44, q1{LUq, Chinna Shivanoor, Chegunta, Chinna Shivanoor, Medak,-Telangana, 502255 AND ...PET|T|ONER 1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Commercial Taxes, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner of the Commercial Taxes Department, Telangana State, C.T Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad-500 001. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Medak Circle, Nizamabad Division,Office of the CCT, Nampally, Hyderabad. 4. The Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (AE), Medchal GST Commissionerate, Medchal GST Bhavan, 11-4-64918, Lak di-ka-pool, Hyderabad-500004 I ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia jraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed ther'ewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a direction or order or writ, more particularly in the nature of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, declaring that impugned Order vide Ref No. 2D36O225095230M dated 2810212025 along with the attachment passed by Respondent No.3 and the show cause notice issued vide DRC-01 Ref No. 2D3611240353671 dated 2711112024 uploaded in the GST portal without physicat signature or digital signature, which is contrary to the provisions of CGST Act and Rules, 2017 and the law laid down by the judicial pronouncement of this Honourable Court having been issued in violation of Section 6(2) of the CGSTiTGST AcI, 2017 and in violation of principles of natural justice as void, illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Article 19(1 )(g) and 300A of the Constitution of lndia. tA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay by restraining the Respondents from initiating any action recover the demands confirmed under the impugned order vide DRC-07 Reference No. 2D36A225O}5230M dated 2\to2l2o25, pending disposal of this writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt S.V.PRANAV RAM counsel for the Respondents: sRl swARoOP OORILLA, Special Govt Pleader for State Tax

The Court made the following: ORDER I

BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARES H SINGH THE HON' AND THE HON 'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.19362 of 2O25 ORDER: Mr S.V.Pranav Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner' Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appears for the respondents'

2.

Heard learned counsel for the pa-rties'

3.

Petitioner came being aggrieved by the order-in-original dated 28'02'2025 at Page No'23 whereby tax under IGST, CGST and SGST along with lpenalty have been imposed for the period 2020 21 on the basis of a show cause notice datecl 23' 1L '2024 based on the audit report for the year 2O2O 2l under Section 73 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2Ot7 (herernafter referred to as 'the Act'). Petitioirer has been proceeded against for the period Jruly , 2077 to Septembe r, 2O2O on the basis of a show cause notice dated 29 .O7 .2022 at Page No 56 under Section 74 of I I

2 the Act by the Central Tax authorities. The proceedings issued by the CGST authorities for the said period are pending. Amongst other grounds, petitioner has taken a plea that parallei proceedings overlapping the same tax period cannot be conducted by both the CGST and the SGST authorities. Therefore, petitioner has assailed it. petitioner has not submitted any reply nor availed the opportunity of personal hearing.

4.

Learned Special Government pleader for State Tax has sought to explain on instructions that rhe tax. liability is only for the period October, 2O2O to March, 202 1 though the audit report was for the year 2O2O_21. In such way, the proceedings initiated by the SGST authorities dd not overlap with that of the CGST authorities. I{owever, on being specifically pointed out, learned Special Government pleader for State Tax has not been able to shor.n from the order_in_ original dated 28.O2.2O25 that the impositron ot.ta,x liabilitv with penalfy is confined to the period Octob er, 2O2O t--o March, 2027 as he has tried to make out. .h

7 _)

5.

A perusai of the impugned order does not reflect that the assessment proceedings are confined to the period October, 2O2O to March, 2O2l only. In such a case, an inference can definitely be drarvn that the SGST authorities have initiated parallel proceedings for t I at least the tax period Aprll, 2O2O to September, 2O2O, 1n respect of which the petitioner is lacing proceedings under Section 74 of the Act by the Centra-l Tax authorities. The impugned order erroneously records that the petitioner has not submitted any reply, whereas such a reply was submitted on27.O2.2O25 at Page No.31, Annexure P4. That makes the impugned order all the more vulnerable on account of non-application of minci ald failing to take into account the reply to the show cause furnished by the ASSCSSCC. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent No.3 to take a fresh decision in accordance with law after due consideration of the reply furnished by the petitioner and accord him an opportunity of personal hearing. In order to facilitate an \ \ li expeditious disposal of the proceedings, the petitioner should

4 appear before the respondent No.3 on 2S.OB.2O2S at 1O.30 A.M.

6.

Learned Special Government pleader lor State Tax has submitted that the proceedings would not be barred bv time for passing an order No.4O I 2o2l-Central Tax dated 29.72.2021 and moreover, since the matter is being remanded for passing a fresh order in view of Section 75(3) of the Act. 7 . The Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Lct it be made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of the parties. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, bhall stand closed. //// 'l . The Princi Telangana paI Secretary, Commercial Taxes, Secre

2.

The Commissioner of pally, Hyderabad-50 the Commercial T 0 001 axes Department, Telangana State, c.T Complex, Nam

3.

The Assistant Commrssioner of State Tax, Medak Circle, Nizamabad rn terms of Notitication To 4.7 Drvtsion, Office of the CCT, Nampally, Hyderabad he Joint Commiss ioner of Central Tax (AE), Medchat GST Commissronerate Medchat GST Bhava n, 11-4-649/8 Lak di-ka-pool, Hydera bad-500004

5.

One CC to SRI S.V.pRANAV RAM, Advocate [oPUC

6.

One CC to SRt SWARO loPUcl

7.

PSK. LS Two CD Coptes OP OORILLA, SpecialGovt Pleader for State Tax AHAR REDDY T REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER erabad, State of I

HIGH COURT DATED:14 tOBt2O2S ORDER WP.No.19362 of 2O2S ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS ,i r n ; I \ 2W ;: 'i / \:,. aJ II 3 0 * D\ -:i.. 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.