Sri Ganga Granites vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
APHC010217662023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3529] WEDNE AY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 11383/2023 Between:
SRI GANGA GRANITES, NEAR GANGA WEIGH BRIDGE. SY.NO.1043/5, CHIMAKURTHY (VANDMD), PRAKASAM DIST. REP BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR, MR.GOGINENI ANUSUYA
...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, (FORMERLY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER) ONGOLE CIRCLE-II, NELLORE DIVISION, ONGOLE- PRAKASAM DIST.
THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES, (NOW THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES), GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, EDUPUGALLU-VIJAYAWADA.
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VELGAPUDI, AMRAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST-A.P.
UNION OF INDIA, REP,BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, 3RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANSAD MARG-NEW DELHI-110001. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
2
pleased to issue any order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring (a) The TRAM-1 Order dated 27.02.2023 of the 1st respondent, passed under Section 140(1) of the AP State Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 (Annexure P- 1) fpr rejection of Transitional claim to the extent of un realized refund claim of Rs.12,23,908/- filed in Form VAT-200 at the end of tax period March-2016, March,2017 and June 2017 under section 38(1)(b) of the APVAT Act,2005 (Annexure P-2) is against to Rule 117 R/w Sec 140 (1),142(3) of the AP State Goods And Service Tax Act 2017 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') and- petitioner for Rs.12,23,908/- filed in Form VAT-200 at the end of tax period March-2016, March,2017 and June 2017 under section 38(1)(b) of the APVAT Act, 2005(Annexure P-2) as the said claims are got it finality in the absence of assessment/ re-assessment proceedings as on today. Hence the refund claim has to by allowed along with interest till the release of the same in cash under rule ,35(8) (a) R/w Sec 38(6) of the APVAT Act, 2005. The petitioner relies upon the decision of the Apex court in the case of M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd Vs Union of India (2011-TIOL-105- SC-CX) (c) and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
K ADI SIVA VARA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S):
GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
3
The Court made the following Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
The petitioner which is in the business of manufacturing and exporting of polished granite slabs/ tiles had been registered under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short “APVAT Act”) and had been carrying the business under the provisions of the APVAT Act. At the time when the Goods and Services Tax (for short “GST”) region was introduced, on 01.07.2017, the petitioner had certain amounts credited to his account apart from an unrealized claim of Rs.12,23,908/- for the tax period March 2016, March 2017 and June 2017. The petitioner, while migrating from APVAT Act to the GST region had sought transitional relief of the said amount of Rs.12,23,908/- in Form TRAN-1, dated 29.11.2022 under Rule 117 read with Section 140(1) of the APGST Act, 2017. This claim was made relying upon the Circular No.180/12/2022-GST, dated 09.09.2022 and Circular No.182/14/2022-GST, dated 10.11.2022. This request of the petitioner had been rejected by the 1st respondent, by way of an order, dated 27.02.2023. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the petitioner approached this Court, by way of the present writ petition.
The petitioner has raised various grounds in support of his contentions that the order of rejection is not based on a proper appreciation of Section 140 of the GST Act read with relevant rules and circulars. Apart from these contentions, the petitioner would also contend that the impugned order does not contain any reasons as to why the application of the petitioner is rejected.
4
Perusal of the impugned order would show that there are no reasons set out in the order. The learned Government Pleader initially sought time to ascertain the record. After ascertaining the record, the learned Government Pleader also could not trace any reasons that could be set out in the order.
In the aforesaid circumstances, it must be held that there is clear violation of principles of natural justice as any unreasoned order would be a violation of principles of natural justice.
In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 27.02.2023 passed by the 1st respondent and the matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent to reconsider the application of the petitioner and to pass necessary orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
_________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Date: 28.01.2026 KA
5
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 11383/2023
Date: 28.01.2026 KA
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.