M/S.Venkatramaiah Ravulapalli vs. Superintendent Of Central Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, a taxpayer, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Tax. This order levied CGST and SGST amounting to Rs. 4,07,47,829/-, along with a penalty of Rs. 2,07,47,829/- and a further penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 125 of the CGST Act. The total demand, including interest, amounted to Rs. 8,15,45,658/- for the tax periods 2017-18 to 2021-22. The petitioner contended that the tax component was not included in the works concluded with the fifth respondent, Engineering Projects (India) Ltd., and concerned Government Departments. The petition sought to set aside this order as illegal, arbitrary, without authority of law, and without jurisdiction.
Held
The Court noted that both learned counsel for the parties fairly submitted that the writ petition was squarely covered by a previous order of the same High Court in WP.No.21022 of 2024, dated 22.04.2025. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned Order-in-Original. The liberty granted to the Revenue in the aforementioned order (WP.No.21022 of 2024) was made applicable to the present case. The Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the said order, without costs. The specific reasoning or findings on the merits of the petitioner's contentions regarding the illegality, arbitrariness, lack of authority, or jurisdiction of the Order-in-Original are not detailed, as the decision was based on the precedent of a prior order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Order-in-Original No. 203/GST/2024-25-Admn(JC)-HYD-GST dated 12.12.2024, levying CGST, SGST, and penalties totaling Rs. 8,15,45,658/- for the period 2017-18 to 2021-22, is legal, arbitrary, without authority of law, and without jurisdiction, as contended by the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the Order-in-Original was illegal, arbitrary, without authority of law, and without jurisdiction. They specifically pointed out that the GST component was not included in the works concluded with the fifth respondent and concerned Government Departments, implying a miscalculation or misapplication of GST provisions. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state respondents. However, their role as respondents implies they would defend the impugned order.
Sections Cited
Section 125
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court mardt: the following: ORDER 1 L i I
THE HON'BLE THE ACTIITG CHIEF WSTICE SUJOY PATIL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No.7992 of 2025 ORDER: (Per the Hon,ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy paut) Sri S.Suri Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, for respondents.
Learned counsel for the parties, during the course of hearing, tairly submit that this wrir petition is squarcly covered by the order passed by this Court in Wp.No.2lOZ2 ot 2024, clated 22.04.2025. The petition may be disposed of in terms of the said order.
In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside. Liberty as given in WP.No.21OZ2 c:t 2e24, d.ated 22.04.2()25 to the Revenue shall be applicable in the same manncr in thc presc.t c.ase as welr. Accordingly, the Writ perition is disposed of. No cosLs. Miscellaneous petitions pencling, if :n1., sh:rli st:rnd closed. A.H.S. cowRt sHANI(AR //// s ISTANT REGISIRAR SECTION OFF]CER 1 4 To, The Superintendent of Cen Division, Hyderabad - GSf Hyderabad. tral Tax, Jubliee Hills - 2 Range, Baniara Hilts Commissionerate, GST Bhavah;' Ba;ii;;rbili;;
The Superintendent of..Central Tax (Anti Evasion), Hyderabad Commissionerate, GST ehavan, gasheeri,lrjn, ivttlOro. GST 3 The. Joint Commissioner of Cen_tral Tax, 0/o principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Hvderabart c$i Cor".r-."ionJi5t", cST Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hydi:rabad.
I
The Adriiticnal Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyde.abad _ GST Commiss Jrte rrate, GST Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.
The Erg nr.'.,'jng Proje{9 Limited(lndia) Ltd, A Gr,verr,ment of lndia Enterpr sr:s, rlot No.50, phase-lll, K'amal6puri bolony, Opp Union gan'[-oJ lndia, Hyc erabad 500 073. 6. The Princ pa Secretqry, lnigatio.n Department, Telangarra Sr-,cretariat, Tank Bund R,:a,1. Sitate of Tdlanga--na, Hydeiabad.
The.Financo fiecretary, Depq[.men! of Revenue, Ivrinistry of Finance, North Block, Lln rr r' tndia, New Eielhi - 110 OO1. 8. One CC k) SiRr S.SURI BABU, Advocate. tOpUCl I 9_Le Q!, t,r t; ll DOMINIC FERNANDES, Senior Standinrl Cor.rnset for CB|C. toPUCl 10.one cc kr Sf tt GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, (Deputy soricit.rr G,rnerar of rndia), High Court for the State of Telangana at ftViGiSOa'0. tOpLCl - - v' "'v'!q,i FOR IRRIGATION, High Court for the State of Telangana at TI 1 1 . Two CCs to (ill Hyderabad. l()U
Two CD Copies;. BSK LS
t n I i HIGH GOUR'I- DATED:30t0t112025 ORDER WP.No.79tl?. of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT C}OSTS ( \ \ --'- /i,ut ;r ri I€ ^'r .t)o,J 25 JJN il6 a) 3 .\: - t -n *.r. t\' i'.;,' ,.tCAV)_.. -*_=._,-,-_ I il.; il J '>> ! 1
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.