M/S Sri Balaji Electricals vs. The Union Of INDIA

WP/33224/2024HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01064339202425 June 2025Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA5 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sri Balaji Electricals, filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court challenging an order in appeal dated July 11, 2024. This appellate order had dismissed the petitioner's appeal, thereby affirming an order in original dated March 25, 2022. The petitioner had initially challenged the order in original by filing a first appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondents are the Union of India, the Commissioner of Customs and Central Tax, the Commissioner of Central Tax and Customs (Appeals), and the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax. The writ petition sought to declare the appellate order illegal and violative of constitutional rights, and to have the petitioner's appeal considered on merits.

Held

The High Court held that it would not be appropriate to entertain the writ petition at this juncture because the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of preferring an appeal before the CESTAT under Section 86 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court also noted that the petitioner had already availed of the remedies available under the Act by preferring a first appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Having lost at the first appellate stage, the Court opined that it would be more appropriate for the petitioner to resort to further remedies available under the Act rather than invoking the writ jurisdiction. The Court reserved the petitioner's right to avail of the statutory remedies in accordance with law. The writ petition was rejected at this juncture without any order as to costs.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal before the CESTAT is available to the petitioner under Section 86 of the Central Excise Act, 1944? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the impugned order was illegal and violative of Article 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution, implying a fundamental right to carry on business and a right to property were infringed, thus justifying the invocation of writ jurisdiction. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue, represented by learned Senior Standing Counsel, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, their presence and the court's decision implicitly suggest they would have supported the dismissal of the writ petition on the grounds of alternative remedy.

Sections Cited

Section 86

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE ..-_ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI .IUSTJ6-i UENSING RAO NAN DIKON DA 13447 | ...PETITIONER WRIT PETITION NO: 33224 0F 2024 Between: M/s Sri Balaji Electrrcals, Rep by.its Pr.o.,pt',9i9ll Jaoan Reddv' Plot No218' Road No.4, pnase-r, ?t'i' io'i5nyl vanastnalipuram, Hyderabad-500070 AND 1. The union of lndia, Repiesented by its secretary, Department of Revenue' Niffi,iliFiril'"i.i' nii'tn alock' N'ew Delhi- 11000' The Commissioner of Customs and Central Tax' Ranga Reddy GST il;#.;il;;;;i", vr p nirr',' iJitino En"iau"' Madhapur' Hvderabad' Telangana 500081 . TheCommissionerofCentralTaxandCustoms:Appeals-llHvderabad commissionerate, 7th rnor]G# 'ilfi L.B.Siublun., Road, Basheerbagh' Hyderabad-500004' 4. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax' Nagole CGST Division Sai Balaji Arcade. 2_3_908, Sy.N",;:6i, d;p"iiti"" e;nk dolony, Nagole' Uppal(lu)' Hyderabad-5O0049 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a direction or Orders' more particularly in the nature of a writ of lt/landamus or any other appropriate Writ' declaring the impugned order vide Order in Appeal No HYD-SVTAX-RR- AP2-256-2024-25 dated 11-O7'2o24as illegal and violative of Article 19(1)(g) and 300A and allow the appeal filed by the Petitioner to be considered on merits' 2 3 IANo: ,OF 2024 petition under Sr in the affidavit riruo in ,lt 151 cpc praying * stay grant an interim ,.u,"oon of the petition' ;;'"t 'n the circumstances stated ro recover the demands f ro restrain th; ;;;; ,,r, court may be pleased to RR-AP2-256_2 OZq_zs a"lolf .irmed under *" ,rprt""tt from initiating anv action ted .r 1-07- ,oroo"ro,"n o,:::: :".":vide HyD-svrAX- counser for the petitione. sp, o,,o.* - _*"t otsposal of this writ petition counser for the Respon;r: SRI PUPPALA BHARATH NANDAN counserrortheResponol""""'''tt'""dt%im'EEl.['JliB,^ scro'6,ei,"#ff ;Ai.^fr B*i;ffi?TiXil.Tf^fff,sroMs The Court made the following: ORDER, I l : l i I I I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P'SAM KOSHY ANI) THE HONOURABLE SNTTUSTTCN NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA w.P.No.332240F 2024 ORDER, @er Hon'ble Sri Justice P Sam Koshy) Heard P. Bharath Nandan' learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.Raghavendra Rao' leamed Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Perused the record' 2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order in appeal dated I l '07 'zl24passed in Appeal No'86/2023-RR(ST) 3. The Appeltate Authority had dismissed the appeat aftirming the order passed by the order in original dated 25'03'2022' wrongly retlected as 05 '03 '2022 in OIO No'95/2021-22-Ldln' 4. At the outset, we are of the considered opinion that since the petitioner has an alternative remedy of preferring appeal belore the CESTAT under Section 86 of the Central Excise Act' 1944' it would not be appropriate at this j uncture to entertain the writ petition where there is a statutory altemative remedy already available with 'the petitioner' Another reason which falls in the ( - _"1 2 mind of the Bench not to entertain the writ petition is for the reason that the order in original dated 25.03.2025 was already challenged by resorting to the remedies availabre under the Act itself by .preferring firsr appeal belore the Comrnissioner (Appeals). Having lost at the first appeal stage, it is more appropriate as such that the petitioner should resorl to further remedies available under the Act, rather than invoking the writ jurisdiction. 5. Reserving the ri-eht of the petitioner of availing the same in accordance with law,, the writ petition, at this juncture, stands rejected. 'fhere shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, nriscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall \ stand closed. $ //TRUE COPY// SD/-S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SEC OFFICER To, TJ GJP 1. 9n" CC to SriPuppgla Bharath Nandan, Advocate tOpUCl 2. One CC to Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar Dy. Solicitor gen. Of lndia [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri D. Raghavendra Rao, SC for the C-entral Board oi lndire-ct Taxes and Customs [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:2510612025

WP.No.33224 of 2024 CLOSING THE WRIT REJCTED WITHOUT COSTS ir ' .

Lr' \' 1 '-l ,7 !,, ..: l:! $2 sEP 2u6 ,{ t.. ':i, -tar'

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.