M/S. Deccan Ferro Alloys PVT. LTD. vs. The Dy. Commissioner (St)

WP/22459/2024HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01043122202418 June 2025Bench: DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR,R RAGHUNANDAN RAO5 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Deccan Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated August 31, 2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (ST) under Section 73(1) of the APGST Act, 2017, and the CGST Act, 2017, for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner also challenged an order dated April 29, 2024, passed by the Additional Commissioner (ST), Appellate Authority. The disputed tax amount was CGST of Rs. 1,76,217/- and SGST of Rs. 1,76,217/-, along with interest. The petitioner sought a declaration that Section 16(2)(c) of the GST Act was unconstitutional and inoperative, and that the impugned orders were illegal. An interim application was filed seeking a stay on the collection of the disputed tax and interest.

Held

The Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that the petitioner had paid the entire tax due as per the impugned order dated August 31, 2023. Consequently, the petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to avail the amnesty scheme contemplated under Section 128A of the GST Act, 2017. The Court, in light of the petitioner's submission and request, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c) or the legality of the impugned orders. The Court granted the liberty as prayed for by the petitioner to avail the amnesty scheme. No costs were ordered.

Key Issues

1. Whether the provisions of clause (c) of Section 16(2) of the GST Act, specifically the requirement that the tax charged in respect of such supply has been actually paid to the Government by the seller, are unconstitutional and inoperative in law to the extent they are prejudicial to the petitioner? The petitioner argued that this provision violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 265, and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The petitioner contended that it should not be penalized for the failure of its suppliers to pay tax to the government, especially when the petitioner has discharged its obligations. The revenue did not record any specific arguments against this contention in the provided text. 2. Whether the order dated August 31, 2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (ST) under Section 73(1) of the APGST Act, 2017, and the CGST Act, 2017, for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018, and the subsequent order dated April 29, 2024, passed by the Additional Commissioner (ST), Appellate Authority, are illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, and unfounded? The petitioner sought to declare these orders illegal and inoperative.

Sections Cited

Section 16(2)(c), Section 73(1), Section 128A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMAR (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 22459 OF 2024 Between: M/s. Deccan Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director Mr. P. Sivarama Raju, Ramanagar, Chintalapalem, Pendurthi-531173 Visakhapatnam District ...PETITIONER AND The Dy. Commissioner (ST), O/o. the Chief Commissioner (ST), A.P., Kunchanapalli, Guntur District. The Additional Commissioner (ST), Appellate Authority, Vijayawada M/s. Gangisetty Sreedhar, 2, D No 21/185, Kamasawri, G Agraharam Near Up School, Cheepurupalli, Vizianagaram- 535128 Andhra Pradesh The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (CT-II) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. The Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ...RESPONDENTS 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 to grant the following reliefs - A. To issue Writ of Mandamus and/or any other similar/appropriate Writ, declaring that the provisions of clause (c) of Sec. 16 (2) of the Act, particularly the words the tax charged in ^|spect of such supply has been actually paid to the $ purchaser to the seller and the seller theftajc to tine Government and vtolare the Articles 14. 19(l)(g). 21, 265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and in-operative in law to the extent it is prejudicial to the interest of the Petitioner and subject matter of the present Petition. Consequently, B. to declare that the Order No. DIN 3731082310726 Dt.31-08-2023, (Ex. P-4) passed U/s. 73(1) of the APGST Act of 2017, and the CGST Act, 2017 for the tax period from July 2017 to March 2018 Respondent, as illegal and in-operative in law. and C. to declare that the

order in Form GST-04 Dt. 29.04.2024 (Ex. P-5), passed by the 2nd Respondent as illegal and in-operative in law. " government, in not paying as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, unfound passed by the 1st lA NO: 1 OF 2024 ^ 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 of collection of the disputed tax of COST of Rs.1,76,217/- and SGST of Rs.1,76,217/- and Interest of Rs. relating to CGST and Rs. 1,72,102/- relating to SGST, for the from July 2017 to March 2018 pursuant to the order of the 1st Respondent dated 31.08.2023 (Ex.P-4), as confirmed by the 2nd Respondent vide order in Form GST-04 Dt. 29.04.2024 (Ex. P-5), pending disposal of the Writ Petition. ' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI L CHANDRA OBUL REDDY SRI A. SARVESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,2 & 4: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX-^ Counsel for the Respondent No.3:— Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI PASALA PONNA RAO, DEPUTY" 1.72,102/- tax period representing SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER

Bench Sr.No:-2 [3446] APHC010431222024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 22459 of 2024 ...Petitioner M/s. Deccan Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd • j Vs. ...Respondents The Dy Commissioner (ST) and Others ********** Mr. L. Chandra Obul Reddy representing Mr. A Sarveswar Rao Advocate for Petitioner; Advocate for Respondent: GP for Commercial Tax CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 19th June 2025 PC: Mr. L. Chandra Obul Reddy, learned counsel appearing vice Mr. A Sarveswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner had paid the entire tax due as per the impugned order dated 31.08.2023 and seeks to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail the amnesty scheme contemplated under Section 128A of the COST Act, 2017. !

2 4 HCJ & RRR, J WP 22459 2024 The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //// N OFFICER S To,

One CC to Sri A. Sarveswar Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

One CC to Sri Pasala Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of India, ^— High Court of A.P.[OPUC]

Two CCs to GP for Commercial Tax, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

Three CD Copies. ssb

HIGH COURT DATED: 19/06/2025 ORDER ANOS^^ ,.1 3 0 JUN 2025 In 5s£eSPATC«^ -Sn' WP.No.22459 of 2024 DISMISSING THE W.P. AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS

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.