Madhu Granites vs. The State Of Ap
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
m % APHC010431342024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3488] TUE AY. THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 22004/2024 Between: Madhu Granites ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT{S) Counsel for the Petitioner:
VIVEK CHANDRA SEKHAR S Counsel for the Respondent(S):
GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following order:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner, who is in the business of mining minerals, had received a show cause notice, dated 05.08.2024, said to have been issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, to show cause why tax interest and penalty should not be collected on certain turnovers that are said to have been suppressed by the petitioner.
T s. RRR, J&HN, J
Aggrieved by the said show cause notice, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the turnovers that are said to have been suppressed relates to the payments of royalty and the petitioner had not paid any tax on the said royalty as the payment of royalty was treated to be payment of tax a and there could be no COST that could be levied on payment of such tax. It is further contended that subsequent to the period set out under the show cause notice, another notice had been received by the petitioner on 23.02.2022 and the petitioner had thereafter started paying GST, to by peace with the department and the same is now being treated as suppression of turnover and the same is not permissible as the requirement of Section 74 namely fraud, misrepresentation or suppression is not available in the present case.
The Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, on the other hand, would submit that the petitioner has come up against the show cause notice and the contentions of the petitioner can very well be placed before the Assessing Authority and the Assessing Authority would be in a better position to ascertain the facts before coming to a conclusion as to whether Section74 of the CGST Act would be applicable or not.
As the challenge is only to a show cause notice, it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to answer the said show cause notice.
RRR, J & HN, J Needless to say, the question of whether Section 74 of the COST Act would nd be applicable to the facts in the present case shall be considered by the 2 nd respondent-Assessing Authority before any further steps are taken by the 2 respondent-Authority.
Needless to say, a personal hearing would also be afforded to the petitioner apart from filing of his written submissions. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed. U.SRi DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //// -:? - SECTION OFFICER To, The Secretary, State Of AP, Commercial taxes Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur pistFict.
Assistant Commissioner (ST), Chitoor I Circle, Chitoor Division.
The Deputy Secretary/Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.
One CC to SRI. VIVEK CHANDRA SEKHAR S Advocate [OPUC]
Two CCS to GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
One CC to SRI. PASALA PONNA RAO, Advocate (Deputy Solicitor General of India) [OPUC]
Three CD Copies 1. csb
T csb HIGH COURT DATED:01/10/2024 ORDER WP.No.22004 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.