Molumuri Srinivas vs. The Union Of INDIA

WP/12732/2025HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01025609202513 August 2025Bench: APARESH KUMAR SINGH,G.M. MOHIUDDIN6 pages

For Petitioner: SRl. THALARI RAVINDER RAO, Counset for the Respondent No.1: SRI KALVALA SANJEEVFor Respondent: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, SENIOR SC FOR CBIC

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, Molumuri Srinivas, filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court challenging an order-in-original dated March 30, 2022, passed by Respondent No. 3. This order imposed a service tax of Rs. 15,65,248/- along with interest, a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 77, a late fee/penalty of Rs. 40,000/- under Section 70, and a penalty of Rs. 15,65,248/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner argued that this order was passed without issuing a proper notice, making it illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to natural justice. The writ petition was filed on April 23, 2025, after the period for filing a statutory appeal had expired. The respondents, including the Union of India and tax authorities, contended that the petitioner had full knowledge of the proceedings, evidenced by acknowledgments of a show cause notice dated December 24, 2020, and the order-in-original.

Held

The Court noted that the writ petition was filed after the prescribed period for filing a statutory appeal had expired. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to invoke the appellate remedy. The Court, in view of this request, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue remedies as may be available in law. No order was made as to costs. The Court did not decide on the merits of the case regarding the legality of the order-in-original or the sufficiency of notice, as the petition was withdrawn by the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order-in-original dated March 30, 2022, imposing service tax, interest, and penalties under the Finance Act, 1994, is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the principles of natural justice due to the alleged absence of a proper notice to the petitioner, as contended by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner had sufficient knowledge of the proceedings leading to the order-in-original, as argued by the respondents? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order-in-original was passed without issuing a proper notice, violating principles of natural justice and making it illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought to set aside the order and prevent the respondents from recovering any tax and penalty. Revenue's Contention: The respondents (Union of India and tax authorities) submitted that the petitioner was in full knowledge of the proceedings. They presented acknowledgments of the show cause notice dated December 24, 2020, and the order-in-original dated March 30, 2022, as evidence of this knowledge. The signature on the acknowledgment of the show cause notice was not disputed by the petitioner.

Sections Cited

Section 73(2), Section 75, Section 77, Section 70, Section 78, Finance Act 1994, Section 174, CGST Act 2017, Article 226

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[ 3488 ] rN rHE HrGH "ou*II3$rtffoBtffE oF TELANGANA (SPecial Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST ''-- TWOTHOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEFJUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH THE HONOURABLE SRiJUSTICE G.M' MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION NO:127320F 2025 Between: ANO 1. 2. 3. 4. Molumuri Srinivas' S/o Dasharatham' - Aged 48 iili,tr'.r.rii cz-i et, ''centenary colonv' - Ratnapur' bi"ol'rilJtiiotsiici. reiangand state-50521 2' vears. Occ-Business, Rimagundam Mandal, ...PETITIONER rheUnionorrndia,.E91l""T"l?B,o?N",inEi":",iYr"efE""1;f*.,,p.]lill ?f, 8',B"Jhylili'#"'"f '"33""?;',,13j,-",T{!"iE:4":J:,[rE#r;::] Commisionerate, OPPosite il},"'*.J#1,:i,T#"fl :r"!iJj"+lf 1f##?1,*1f?:a':13:T#Hm','-" The Suoerintendent ot Ce p.iEoZp5lri rji;iii"i, tetans'n" State-5051 72' t *.REsPoNDENTS PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to decraring the order-in-originar No.77l2021-22-Adjn-sr dt.3Vl3l2[22 on File No'C No GEXCOM/ADJN/STt1407I2OZ:O-CGST-MANC passed by the respondent No 3 by imposing Service Tax of Rs 15' 65'2481- in terms of Section 73(2) along with interest thereon in terms of Section 75 of the Finance Act 1994, r/w. Section 174 of the CGST Act' 2017 and also penalty of Rs.10,000/- imposed tJts.77 and late fee/penalty of Rs'40'0001 U/s 70 of the Finance Act 1994 and a penalty of Rs' 15,65,248l- in terms of Section 78 of the FinanceACtlgg4withoutissuingnoticetothepetitionerasillegal,arbitraryand contrary to law and also contrary to the principles of natural justice and set aside the same, consequenry direct the respondent No.3 and 4 not to corect any tax and penalty IA NO: 1 oF 2025 Petition under section 15-l cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to grant interim direction to stay of corection of the disputed tax and penarty of Rs. 1S,65,248l- pending disposal of the above writ petition - q Her rqrt: Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. THALARI RAVINDER RAO Counset for the Respondent No.1: SRI KALVALA SANJEEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2to4: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, SENIOR SC FOR CBIC

The Court made the following: ORDER

'BLE TIIE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH AND TIIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M MO IN PETITIO N No.l2732 of2025 INGH s THD HON WRIT ORDER: Mr. Thalari Ravinder Rao' Ieamed counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Kalvala Sanjeev, Iearned counsel for respondent No.I Mr. Dominic I'-ernandes' leamed. Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes arrd Customs (CBIC) appears for respondent Nos'2 to 4' I Heard learned counsel for the parties' Petitioner has approached this Court against the order-in-original dated 3O.O3.2O22 Passed bY resPondent tax of Rs. 1 5 ,65,248 / - in terms of No.3 imPosing service Section 73(1) ofthe Finance Act, 1994 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') along with interest in terms of Section 75 of the Act and also penalty of Rs. IO,OO0/- under Section 77 of the 2 J

2 Act apart from late fee penalty of Rs.40,OOO,z_ under Section 78 of the Act. The wri t petition was preferred oo 23.04.2025 much after the expiry ol.prescribed period for filing the statutory appeal. 70 of the Act and terms of Section 3 By way of memo filed on behalf of respondent penalty of equivalent amount of tax in 15.02.2025, the receipts of the show cause ,,rolr". dated knowledge of the 2. I_earned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC was asked to seek instructions on specific statements made by the petitioner about service of notice on order_in_original dated 30.03.2022. Nos.2 to 4 dated acknowledgments of 24.72.2020. order-in-original dated 30.O3.2O22 ar]d corrigendum to order_in_original datecl 13.05.2022 have been filed submits that the petitioner was in full proceedings.

Leamed Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC

3 The signature on the acknowledgement over the show cause notice dated 24'12'2020 is' however' not disputed bY the Petitioner' Irarned counsel for the petitioner seeks 5 6. permission closed. Two CD CoPies //// iol-l. tlvasnee ANT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to invoke the aPPellate remedY'

In view of the request made' the instant writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as may be available in law f{owever, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaleous applications pending' if any' shall stand t To, B 1 2 J 4 M 313 33lS Sfil IB,IKB Hx'ffi-T.rs'ftfd.i:3'et'o#31," ropucl 5riE;d i6 5iii. xnLvnln sAruleev' Advocate [oPUCl I I 1W LS

HIGH COURT DATED:13 tOBtzO2S \r -'- \..* ^_ r...* \'ii."-:-- ::-; ii_l lr -r t( ,, 0 t rrT 2u5 () (. i! . ).- ORDER WP.No.12T32 ot 2O2S DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS 6 'l11p6-

Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.