Sodexo INDIA Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
APHC010134352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3525] F.-rrT-r I- WEDNE AY. THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 6869/2025 Between: Sodex India Services Private Limited ...PETITIONER AND The Union Of India ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:
VIVEK CHANDRA SEKHAR S Counsel for the Respondent: 1 .SANTHI CHANDRA (Sr. Standing Counsel for CBIC) The Court made the following Or6er:(perHon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner, which has a G.S.T. registration in the State of Andhra Pradesh, is in the business of supply of taxable services mainly catering services, housekeeping services and other support services. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice, dated 27.07.2024, for the tax period July, 2017 to March, 2021, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why
2 RRR,J & Dr.KMRJ W.P.N0.6869 of 2025 not be taxed. The show-cause notice sought an explanation from the petitioner, in relation to the following: Non-payment of tax against supply of services made to SE2 unit on account of the failure of the petitioner to furnish authorized operations in the Special Economic Zone certified Officer during the tax period. certain turnovers should (i). proof of admittance for by the Specified (ii). Short-payment of tax against supplies 9963 during the tax period. made under SAC code (III). Wrong availment of Input Tax Credit on invoices issued by input service distributor which 20 of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 read with are not in consonance with the provisions of Section Rules therein. (iv). Non/short levy of tax during the tax period difference between the turnover finally to show on account of as per Trial Balance and G.S.T. returns and cause why the penal legal provisions 122 (2), 125 of C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 & under Sections 74, Section 50 of the G.S.T. Act, 2017 should not be invoked.
The petitioner submitted its objections, by way of replies 18.10.2024 & 06.11.2024. Order-in-Original, dated show-cause notice. , dated The 3^^ respondent, had thereupon 05.02.2025, confirming the proposals in the passed an RRR,J & Dr.KMR,J Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition.
The primary ground raised by the petitioner is that, the 3^*^ respondent has not considered the objections raised by the petitioner, in their correct perspective. The petitioner would contend that, the 3^^ respondent, had relied upon certain documents, produced by the petitioner, without appreciating the fact that, the said documents documents, which could not have been relied were only Trial Balances and incomplete upon.
It is contended that, the 3'^^ respondent had obtained a Trial Balance from the office of the petitioner and utilized the said Trial Balance to arrive at certain turnovers and findings. The petitioner also contends that, this Trial Balance related to the turnovers and supplies made various States, apart from the State of Andhra Pradesh. The 3^^ could not have clubbed all these turnovers the State of Andhra Pradesh. The complaint of the aspect has not been considered at all by the 3 to this effect being filed by the petitioner. Apart from by the petitioner in respondent as if these are supplies made in petitioner is that, this rd respondent despite objections this, the petitioner also contends that the accounts certified by the Chartered Accountants, certain Trial Balances had been rejected by the 3 justifiable reason. For this including rd respondent without any purpose, the petitioner would rely upon the observations of the 3^^" respondent, wherein figures reported in certain places
RRR,J & Dr.KMRJ ^ in the Trial Balance were taken to be correct, while figures in the very same Trial Balance, at other places, were rejected without any explanation.
In relation to the supplies made to SEZ units, the petitioner also contends that the supplies made to the SEZ units were rejected, on the ground that, certification, necessary for grant of exemption of payment of tax by treating them as zero-rated supplies, was not there, on the ground that, there was no stamp on the invoices. The petitioner submits that, the endorsement sought by the 3'^'^ respondent, was not available in the initial periods of 2017 - 2018 when the G.S.T. Act had been introduced and that, the petitioner had submitted invoice copies which has due endorsement. Despite such submission, the 3'^'^ respondent is said to have ignored the submissions and had held that, such supplies are not eligible to be treated as zero-rated supplies as if no endorsement was available.
In relation to supplies made to SAC 9963, the petitioner also contends that, the 3^^^ respondent did not answer the objections of the petitioner that such supplies had been made on the basis of catering services agreement and that, even stock transfer of goods to other branches had been treated as supplies and the same is not permissible.
On the notification of the penal provisions of the G.S.T. Act, the petitioner also contends that, the said provisions could not have been invoked in as much as there was no fraud, willful mi eclaration or suppression of rd tu-fcipyer. The petitioner further contends that, in such circumstances, the 3 RRRJ & Dr.KMR,J respondent, merely on the ground that, he was not accepting the turnovers shown by the petitioner had invoked the penal provisions without any justification. The learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the 3'"^ respondent, contends that, all these issues had been considered by the 3'^^ respondent in their proper perspective. The learned Standing Counsel also contends that, the material relied upon by the 3'^^ respondent such as the Trial Balances and other accounts, had been obtained from the office of the petitioner itself and as such, the petitioner cannot resile from these documents as they reveal true facts and figures, in relation to the supplies made by the petitioner.
A perusal of the impugned order of assessment has revealed that, the 3'^'^ respondent had not adverted to some of the issues raised by the petitioner on the question of whether the Trial Balances obtained from the 3 respondent related only to the turnover of supplies made within the State of 10. rd Andhra Pradesh or whether the related supplies made outside the State of Andhra Pradesh were also included in the Trial Balance. It also appears that, the 3'^'^ respondent has not taken into account the invoices produced by the petitioner, with the necessary endorsement, in relation to the supplies made to the SEZ unit.
In such circumstances, a case of non-consideration of objections, filed by the petitioner, is made out.
6 RRR,J & Dr.KMR,J ^ W.P.No.6869 of 2025 In these circumstances, it would be appropriate to set aside the order of 12. rd assessment and remand the matter back to the 3 respondent for re-appreciation of the grounds raised by the petitioner and for a verification of the invoices and other documents produced by the petitioner for claiming reduction of liability of the petitioner. Apart from this, the 3"'^ respondent would also have to go into the question of whether the penal provisions of Section 74 and other provisions mentioned above could be invoked. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the order of assessment, dated 05.02.2025 and remanding the matter back to the 3’'"' respondent for passing a fresh order of assessment after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 13. an 14. Needless to say, the period between the date of the order of the impugned assessment and the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purpose of calculating limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed. N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT ^IS^AR-^ SECtlON^FICER //// To 1. The Secretary Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, No. 137, North Block, New Delhil 10 001. 2. The Secretary, Revenue (CT), Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh 522503 c^ydpuui, Vlt ‘^°"^^^°^/^'ssioner, O/o The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax Visakhapatnam Central GST Commissionerate GST Bhavan Area, Visakhapatnam,530035. , Port
One CC to Sri Vivek Chandra Sekhar S Advocate [OPUC]
One CC to M/s. Santhi Chandra (Sr. Standing Counsel for CBIC) Advocate [OPUC]
Two CCs to GP for Commercial Tax, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
One CC to Sri Pasala Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of India, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OPUC]
Three CD Copies TF ill ,f.v » 4' a-
T HIGH COURT 'i DATED:16/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.6869 of 2025 5 2)5^ 2025 ^ Current Section DISPOSING OF THE W.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.