M/S.Gdr Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. GDR Constructions, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax. The impugned order, bearing No. 61/2025-Adjn.(GST)AC dated January 31, 2025, was passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, for the tax periods 2017-18 and 2018-19. The petitioner sought to declare this order illegal, arbitrary, high-handed, contrary to the CGST Act, in violation of natural justice, and barred by limitation. Additionally, the petitioner filed an interim application seeking suspension of the operation of the impugned order pending the disposal of the writ petition. The respondents included various authorities of the Central Tax and the Union of India.
Held
The Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to avail the remedy of appeal. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents had no objection to this request. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn with the liberty prayed for. However, the Court provided a crucial direction: if an appeal is preferred within fifteen days from the date of the order, the appellate authority shall decide it on its merits and shall not dismiss it on the ground of limitation. No order as to costs was made. The issue of the legality, arbitrariness, violation of natural justice, or limitation of the impugned order was not decided on merits as the petition was withdrawn.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, for the tax periods 2017-18 and 2018-19 is illegal, arbitrary, high-handed, contrary to the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, in violation of principles of natural justice, and barred by limitation. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was illegal, arbitrary, high-handed, contrary to the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, violated principles of natural justice, and was barred by limitation. The petitioner sought to set aside the order. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue on the merits of the case. However, the Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC had no objection to the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition.
Sections Cited
Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER lA NO: 1 OF 2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SU.JOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No. 13175 of 2O2S ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble th.e Acting Chief Justicc Sujog paul) Sri B.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks to withdraw this writ petition with the liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal.
Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 has no objection. 3 Accordingry, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty prayed for. However, if the appeal is preferred within fifteen days from today, the appelrate authorit5r shall decide it on merits and shall nol dismiss it on the ground of limitation. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, sha11 stand closed A.SRINIVASA REDDY ISTANT REGISTRAR //// SECTION OFFICER One CC to SRI B.KRISHNA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] one cc to sRl Dotr/ilNtc FERNANDES, Sr. SC FOR CB|C tOpUCl One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERIAL OF lNDIA, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OPUC] Two CD Copies To, 1. 2. 3. 4 BSR
CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:2910412025 ORDER WP.No.13175 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN, WITHOUT COSTS -1= :)+ { :: i. 'i: - ' .' '-:\l r,,E S 14iq(- -a- | '. l.)\r ") 3tl iPR m6 z _c) 7M I i l i I i L
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.