BharatTaxGST

M/S Venkateswara Traders vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax

Original PDF →
WP/10494/2025HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01020610202517 June 2025Bench: R RAGHUNANDAN RAO,SUMATHI JAGADAM6 pages
For Respondent: SRI S.A.V. SAI KUMAR, Jr. SC FOR, CBIC

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
APHC010206102025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) y. 03? WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 10494/2025 Between: M/s. Venkateswara Traders, 10/46, Main Road, Near RTC Bus Stand, Porumamilla, Ysr District, Andhra Pradesh - 516193, rep. by its Proprietor Sri Mudumala Ramana Reddy. ...PETITIONER AND I.The Superintendent of Central Tax, Proddatur-ll COST Range, D. No. 3/916, Old DSP Office Building, YMR Colony, Proddatur, YSR District, Andhra Pradesh. 2.The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue (CT) Department, A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 3.The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary (Finance), Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001. ...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 issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring that the impugned Order-in- Original No. YL0403-32-2024-25 (GST) (Adjn), dated 25-02- 2025, passed by the First Respondent under the SGST, CGST and IGST Acts, 2017, for the F.Y. 2020- 21, is arbitrary, aside the same. capricious, unjust, unfair and illegal and consequently set lA 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 of all further proceedings, including recovery of tax, penalty and interest, pursuant to the impugned Order in Original No. YL0403-32-2024-25 (GST) (Adjn), dated 25-02-2025, passed by the First Respondent under the SGST, CGST and IGST Acts, 2017, for the F.Y. 2020-21. Counsel for the Petitioner; G. NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI S.A.V. SAI KUMAR, Jr. SC FOR CBIC Counsel for the Respondent No.2:GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI PASALA PONNA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

The Court made the following: ORDER

APHC010206102025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3541] Si WEDNE AY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 10494/2025 Between: M/s Venkateswara Traders ...PETITIONER AND The Superintendent Of Central Tax and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: ...RESPONDENT(S) 1.G NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

2.

The Court made the following order: (perHon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri G. Narendra Chetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.A.V. Sai Kumar, learned Junior Standing Counsel for CBIC appearing for the respondents.

2.

The petitioner is a dealer under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 and the State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) Act,

pppi^ 2 RRR, J &JS,J W.P.No. 10494 of 2025 2017, The case of the petitioner is that it had not availed the input tax credit that was available to it under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017 and had reversed the balance excess input tax availed by it under the SGST and CGST Act by adjusting the input tax credit available to it under the IGST Act. The respondent authorities did not accept this adjustment and sought recovery of excess deposit or input tax credit availed by the petitioner under the IGST Act and the CGST Act.

3.

Aggrieved by the order, dated 25.02.2025, rejecting such adjustment, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition.

4.

In addition to this ground, the learned counsel for the petitioner would also contend that the Assessing Authority has not taken into account the amendment to Section 49 of the CGST Act with effect from 01.10.2022, relating to the permissibility of payment by way of adjusting the credit available under the electronic credit ledger. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble RRR, J&JS,J W.P.No.10494 of 2025 violation of fundamental rights or any constitutional rights are available in the present case. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the 7. petitioner to avail of its remedies of appeal available under the Acts. The time consumed in approaching this Court on 21.04.2025 till today shall be excluded for the purpose of calculating limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //// SECTION OFFICER To,

1.

One CC to Sri G. Narendra Chetty, Advocate [OPUC]

2.

One CC to Sri S.A.V. Sai Kumar, Jr. SC for CBIC[OPUC]

3.

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

4.

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

5.

Three CD Copies. ssb

HIGH COURT DATED; 18/06/2025 ORDER WP NO.10494 OF 2025 DISMISSING THEW.P. 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.