Rvn Infra Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA

Original PDF →

WP/30683/2024HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01058791202424 March 2025Bench: B KRISHNA MOHAN,A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA10 pages

For Petitioner: SRI N JEEVAN KUMARFor Respondent: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. RVN Infra Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated December 17, 2024, passed by the Additional Commissioner (ST) and Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 3). The petitioner had approached Respondent No. 3 after the Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Respondent No. 4) issued orders on February 1, 2021, demanding tax for Financial Years 2017-18 and 2018-19 under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner's appeals filed before Respondent No. 3 were dismissed on technical grounds, specifically for an abnormal delay, with the authority noting no specific direction from the High Court for condonation of such delay. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and have their appeals admitted.

Held

The High Court, in light of the statement made by the learned Government Pleader, permitted the petitioner to approach the original authority for appropriate relief. The Court directed that the reliefs sought before the original authority shall be considered strictly in accordance with law and in pursuance of the High Court's previous judgment dated September 17, 2024. The petitioner was granted two weeks from the date of receiving the order to approach the original authority. Until then, no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 3) erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeals solely on technical grounds of delay, without considering the merits, especially when the petitioner approached the authority pursuant to a previous High Court order? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority should have decided the matter on merits, as they approached the authority following directions from a coordinate bench of the High Court. They contended that the dismissal based on technicalities for delay was improper. Revenue's contention: The learned Government Pleader for the respondents submitted that the petitioner ought to have approached the original authority for necessary reliefs, as per the previous High Court orders. The Appellate Authority correctly rejected the appeal due to abnormal delay. However, if the petitioner approaches the original authority, it would be considered in terms of the High Court's previous judgment.

Sections Cited

Section 74, Section 107

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

edgrfF IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA yyRIT_ PETITION NO:_ 30683 OF 2024 Betwee n : M/s. RVN lnfra Private Limited, Incorporated under the Companies Act,1956 office at 24-2-1471, Military Colony, Dargamitta, Nellore -524 004 Rep. by its Managing Director, Also at - Regd. Office. 8-2-293-82-NL-79, PIot No.loo MLA and MPs Colony, Jubilee Hills, Telangana, India, 500034 ...Petitioner AND 1. The Union of lnd'la, Ministry of Finance, Central Secretariat, New Delhi. Rep. by 'lts Principal Secretary, 2. State of Arldhra Pradesh, Commercial Taxes Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. Rep. by -its Principal Secretary. 3. Additional Commissioner (ST) and Appellate Authority, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Assistant Commissioner, (ST), Nellore-lI C®lrcle, SPSR Nellor; District. Andhra Pradesh. 5. The Chief Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax, Edupugallu, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. 6. The Superintendent Engineer, Somaseela Swarnamukhi LinkCanal and .i Swarnamukhi Barrage Circle, Dargamitta, Nellore-524 004, SPSR NeIIore District, Andhra Pradesh. 7. M/s. Progressive Constructions Limited, having its Registered Office at 7th FIoor, Raghava North Block, Raghava Ratna Towers Chirag AN Lane, Abids, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Authorised Representative. ...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 a writ, order or direction, more in the nature of a writ of Certiorari - (a) calling for records of the Respondent No. 3 in order bearing A,O No. DIN3717122443085 dated 17.12.2024 and the Respondent No, 4 in Orders dated 01.02,2021 (Order Nos. ZH370221OD21712(CGST) and zH370221OD21712 (SGST)) and the consequent Forms GST DRC -07 dated 01.02.2021 (Reference Nos. ZD3702210002727 and ZD3702210002743), and consequently, quash the said orders, (b) condoning the delay of the Petitioner I'n filing the appeals (AD371124002671J and AD3711240026785) before the Respondent No. 3 under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, and consequently, direct the Respondent No. 3 to admit the said appeals, (c) declaring the Orders dated o1.02.2021 (Order Nos. zH370221OD21712(CGST) and ZH370221OD21712 (SGST)) and the consequent Forms GST DRC - 07 dated 01.02.2021 (Reference Nos. zD3702210002727 and ZD3702210002743) whereunder demands are raised by Respondent No. 4 under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 for F.Ys 2017-18 and 2018- 19, as not sustainable for the reason that the charges of fraud or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax have not been established, and consequently, direct Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 to consider the said Orders aS Orders issued under Sect'lon 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 lANO: 1 OF2024 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 condone the delay of the Petitioner 'ln filing the appeals (AD371124002671J and AD3711240026785) and direct the Respondent No, 3 to admit the said appeals lANO: 2OF2024 __ _ _ __ petition under sect|lon 151 CPC praying that in the Circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the H'lgh Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings aga'lnst the Petitioner pursuant to the orders dated o1.02.2021 (Order Nos. ZH370221OD21712(CGST) and zH370221OD21712 (SGST)) and the orders 'ln Forms GST DRC -07 dated o1.02.2021 (Reference Nos. ZD3702210002727 and ZD3702210002743) issued by Respondent No. 4 [ANO: 3OF2024 petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the Circumstances stated in the aff'IdaVit filed in Support Of the Petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the originals of (i) Order bearing A.O No. DIN3717122443085 dated 17.12.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 3`, (ii,) order bearing No. ZH370221OD21712(CGST) dated 01.02.2021 passed by the Respondent No. 4, (i'li) Order bearing No. ZH370221OD21712 (¥SGST)) dated o1.02.2021 passed by the Respondent No. 3, (iv) Form GST DRC -07 bearing Reference No. ZD3702210002727 dated 01.02.2021 and (v) Form GST DRC 07 bearing Reference No. ZD3702210OO2743 dated 01.02.2021 issued by the Respondent No. 4 _EE- b Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N JEEVAN KUMAR counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 5: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Counsel for the Respondent No.6: GP FOR IRRIGATION AND CAD Counsel for the Respondent No.7.`: M/s. CKR ASSOCIATES

The Court made the following: Order

APHCO10587912024 ELELHffi lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (special original Juri iction) [3527] TUE AY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT PETITION NO-. 30683/2024 Between : Rvn lnfra Private Limited The Union Of India and Others counsel for the Pet-ItiOner:

N JEEVAN KUMAR counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.CKR ASSOCIATES 2.GP FOR IRRI AND CAD I

GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

AND ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S)

W.P.No.3O683 of 2024 Ih_e Court made the followinq: ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice B. Krishna Mohan) Heard Mr. Vikram Pooserla, the learned senior counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.2 to 5. 2. This writ petition is filed questioning the order passed by the 3rd respondent by way of an endorsement dated 17.12.2024. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the orders of the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in W,P.No.93O6 of 2022 and batch dated 17.09.2024, the petitioner along with others approached the above said authority. Instead of deciding the matter on merits, the 3rd respondent/the appellate authority, taking the view merely on technical aspects for delay, dismissed the appeal observing that there was no direction from the Hon'ble High Court with regard to the condonation of abnormal delay in filing the appeal.

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that by virtue of the above said orders of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court dated 17.09.2024, the petitioner ought to have approached the original authority for necessary reliefs, instead, it approached -\ c-® the appellate authority. The appellate authority rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of abnormal delay. lf the petitioner approaches the W.P.No.3O683 of 2024 original authority, the same would be considered in terms of the above said orders of the Division Bench of this High Court by giving due opportunity tO the parties concerned. 5. ln view of the above Said Statement made by the learned Government pleader, that the petitioner can approach the original authority for appropriate relief, and in view of the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to approach the original authority in the light of the above said judgment of this court dated 17.09.2024. The reliefs that are going tO be sought before the original authority by the petitioner shall be considered by the said authority strictly in accordance with law in pursuance of the above said judgment of this Court.

The petitioner shall approach the Original authority aS indicated above within a period of two (o2) weeks from the date of receipt Of this Order. Till such time only, there shall not be any coercive action. Any further relief that is required to be sought, the same can be made before the original authority by the petitioner.

Accordingly, thisWrit Petit'lon 'l isposed of. There shall be no orderas to costs. Lii=i=

Erf E W.P.No.30683 of 2O24 As a sequel, lnterlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. M SRINIVAS //// To, S -I 1 sT::r:tr:nrIC:tPIeNeS;c5eetlahY, The UnIOn Oflndla, MlnlstryofFInanCe, Central

The Principle secretary, state of Andhra pradesh, commercial Taxes Department, velagapudi, Amaravathl|, Guntur District, Andhra pradesh.

Additional commissioner (sT) and Appellate Authority, Tjrupati, Andhra Pradesh.

The Assistant commI'SSiOner (ST), NeIIore-" circle, spsR Nellore DistrI'Ct. Andhra Pradesh.

The Chief Commissioner of Goods and services Tax, Edupugallu, Vijayawada, Andhra pradesh.

The Superintendent Engineer, somaseela swarnamukhi LI-nkCanal and swarnamukhI' Barrage circle, Dargamitta, Nellore-524 004, SPSR Nellore Distrl'ct, Andhra pradesh.

The AuthorI'Sed Representative, M/s. Progressive constructions Limited, having its Registered office at 7th Floor, Raghava North Block, Raghava Ratna Towers chirag AN Lane, Abids, Hyderabad.

One CC to SRI N JEEVAN KUMAR Advocate [opuc]

Two CCs to GP FOR IRRIGATION AND CAD, High Court ofAndhra Pradesh [ouT]

10.

TwoCCstoGPFORCOMMERCIALTAX, HighCourfofAndhra Pradesh [ouT] one cc to M/S. CKR ASSOCIATES, Advocate [opuc] Three CD Copies

HIGH COURT DATED: 25/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.30683 of 2024 DISPOSING THE WP 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.