M/S. Power Security Services And House Keeping vs. The Union Of INDIA
Held
The Court held that the petitioner has an available statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order under Section 107 of the A.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to avail this remedy. The authorities concerned were instructed to deal with the appeal in accordance with the law. The Court also granted a period of two weeks from the date of the order during which no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of on these terms, with no order as to costs. The specific legality or impropriety of the order, or the violation of natural justice, was not decided on merits by the High Court.
Facts
The petitioner company filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the 3rd respondent on August 26, 2020. This order directed the petitioner to pay GST tax due, along with interest under Section 50 of the GST Act and a penalty equivalent to the tax under Section 71(1) of the APGST Act, 2017 and CGST Act, 2017. The order stipulated that failure to comply within seven days would result in action under Section 74(1) of the said Act, without providing an opportunity for a hearing. The petitioner contended that this order was illegal and improper. The Court noted that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the A.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order passed by the 3rd respondent, directing the petitioner to pay GST tax, interest, and penalty without providing an opportunity of hearing, is illegal and improper, thereby violating principles of natural justice, and consequently, whether it is liable to be set aside? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was illegal and improper because it was passed without affording them an opportunity of hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice. They sought to have the order set aside. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state respondents. However, the Court's observation implies that the revenue's position would be addressed through the statutory appeal mechanism.
Sections Cited
Section 50, Section 71(1), Section 74(1), Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN
WRIT PETITION No.21369 OF 2020
ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)
This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “……….pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Order No.ZH3708200D65516, dated 26.08.2020, directing the petitioner company to pay the GST Tax due along with interest under Section 50 of the said Act and penalty equivalent to the tax specified in the order under Section 71(1) of APGST Act, 2017 and CGST Act, 2017 within 7 days in the event of failure, action will be taken under Section 74(1) of the said Act without giving an opportunity of hearing as illegal, improper and set aside the same and pass….”
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondent No.1, and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4. 3. Even as per the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner h
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.