M/S. Aparna Organics LTD. vs. Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
APHC010246992025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3529] WEDNE AY, THE TWENTY FIRST 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 Nos.12412 & 25219/2025 WRIT PETITION NO: 12412/2025 Between:
M/S. B V L GRANITES,, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SHRI RAMINENI SRINIVASULU, SY. NO. 758/1,2, 753/B AND 755/C 1A NH-5, NEAR TOOL PLAZA, TANGUTURU, PRAKASAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 523 274. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAXES, O/O THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAXES, GST BHAWAN, KANNAVARI THOTA, GUNTUR - 522 004. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAXES, ONGOLE RANGE, NELLORE DIVISION,
GUNTUR CGST COMMISSIONERATE, ANDHRA PRADESH.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAXES, ANTI- EVASION HQRS. OFFICE, GUNTUR CGST COMMISSIONERATE, GST BHAWAN, KANNAVARI THOTA, GUNTUR-522 004. 4. UNION OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE) NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI.
...RESPONDENT(S):
2
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 pleased tomay be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order quashing the impugned order-in-original vide OlO No. GUN- GST-000-ADC-61/2024-25-GST dated 09.01.2025 bearing DIN No. 20250155YK0000333305 (Annexure P-1) passed by the 1st Respondent demanding recovery of refund of Rs. 6,97,75,614/- sanctioned on exports for the period January 2020 to September 2022, after omission of the Rule 96 (10) of GST Rules, 2017 vide Notification No. 20/2024-CT dated 08.10.2024 without any saving clause to the pending proceedings as on date of omission as arbitrary, unconstitutional, unreasonable, and without juri iction and violative of Article 269A and Article 289 of the Constitution. B. The Honble Court alternatively may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order quashing the impugned order-in-original vide OlO No. GUN-GST-000-ADC-61/2024-25-GST dated 09.01.2025 bearing DIN No. 20250155YK0000333305 (Annexure P-1) passed by the 1st Respondent, as the Petitioner has repaid the benefit of IGST claimed at the time of import along interest and has got the Bill of Entries re-assessed from the Juri ictional Customs Authorities as per the Board Circular No. 233/27/2024- GST dated 10.09.2024, for regularizing the contravention under Rule 96 (10) of GST Rules, 2017 and hence, the impugned order demanding the of refund of Rs. 6,97,75,614/- sanctioned on account of recovery Exports with payment of tax during January 2020 to September 2022 is patently illegal, violative of principles of natural justice. C. And to pass IA 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 may be pleased stay the operation of the proceedings of the 1®' Respondent in order-in-original vide OlO No. GUN-GST-OOO-ADC- 61/2024-25-GST dated 09.01.2025 bearing DIN No. 20250155YK000033 3305 (Annexure P-1) demanding the recovery of refund of Rs. 6,97,75,614/- sanctioned during the period January 2020 to September 2022, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
ANIL KUMAR BEZAWADA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
SANTHI CHANDRA (Sr. Standing Counsel for CBIC)
3
WRIT PETITION NO: 25219/2025 Between:
M/S. APARNA ORGANICS LTD.,, (FORMELY M/S. LANTECH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.) (REP BY ITS DIRECTOR) SY.NO. 78, 79, 80 AND 145, LANTECH, CHITIVALASA, PYDIBIMAVARAM, SRIKAKULAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 532409
...PETITIONER AND 1. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM CGST COMMISSIONERATE, GST BHAVAN, PORT AREA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 530035. 2. UNION OF INDIA, (REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE)) NORTH BLOCK, 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 pleased topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the impugned Order-ln-Original No. VSP-CGST- ADC-02-2025-26 dt. 17.06.2025 passed by the 1st Respondent as being illegal, passed without authority of law, violative of the principles of natural justice, violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India and against the provisions of COST Act, 2017, IGST Act, 2017 and Rules and Notifications issued thereunder IA 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 pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order-In-Original No. VSP- CGST-ADC-02-2025-26 dt. 17.06.2025 Counsel for the Petitioner:
Y SREENIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
D NAGARAJA KUMARI
4
The Court made the following Common Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
As both these Writ Petitions raised an identical question of law, they are being disposed of by way of this Common Order.
Heard Sri Anil Kumar Bezawada, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Santhi Chandra, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, in W.P.No.12412 of 2025 and Y. Siri Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Y. Sreenivasa Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. D. Nagaraja Kumari, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, in W.P.No.25219 of 2025. 3. In both these cases, the proceedings had been initiated against the petitioners for recovery of benefits availed by the petitioners under Rule-96 of the Central Goods & Services Rules, 2017 [for short “the CGST Rules”]. These proceedings had been initiated on the ground that the petitioners have violated the conditions set out in Rule-96(10) of the CGST Rules and as such, the petitioners are liable to return the benefits obtained under Rule-96 of the CGST Rules. The aforesaid proceedings ended with an Order, dated 09.01.2025, passed by the 1st respondent, in W.P.No.12412 of 2025 and an Order, dated 17.06.2025, passed by the 1st respondent, in W.P.No.25219 of 2025. The petitioners being aggrieved by these Orders of assessment, have approached this Court by way of the Writ Petitions.
Even before these Writ Petitions came to be filed and during the time when the proceedings were going on before the 1st respondent, in each of the Writ Petitions, Rule-96(10) of the CGST Rules came to be omitted with 5
effect from 08.10.2024 without any clause saving the actions initiated under the said provision. The effect of such omission was considered by the Hon’ble Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Addwrap Packaging Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors2 and the Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court in the case of M/s. Sri Sai Vishwas Polymers Vs. Union of India & Ors, dated 30.04.2025 in W.P(MB).No.103 of 2025. All the Hon’ble High Courts had taken a consistent view that the omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules without a savings clause, would nullify all the pending proceedings under Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules.
Smt. Santhi Chandra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, would submit that the removal of Rule-96(10) of the CGST Rules would not affect the pending proceedings and as such, the Judgments of the Hon’ble High Courts would not be applicable.
This contention would have to be rejected. The proceedings initiated under a provision of law, can be continued, even if such a provision of law is deleted from the statute book. However, such continuation would be permissible only when the omission of the provision is accompanied by a saving clause. In the present case, there is no such saving clause and as such, the pending proceedings would also stand lapsed. This observation is subject to the provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and more specifically Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. 1 2025 (9) TMI 806 2 (2025) 31 Centax 274 (Guj.)/2025 (98) G.S.T.L 241 (Guj.)
6
Following the aforesaid Judgments of various High Courts, the Writ Petitions are allowed setting aside the impugned assessment orders, dated 09.01.2025 & 17.06.2025. Consequently, any amounts recovered under the aforesaid proceedings shall be liable to be refunded to the petitioners. 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: 21.01.2026
BSM
7
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION Nos.12412 & 25219/2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)
21-01-2026
BSM
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.