M/S. Joint Venture Of Tata Projects Limited And Raghava Constructions vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax

WP/5646/2025HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01011201202510 April 2025Bench: SUJOY PAUL,RENUKA YARA5 pages

For Petitioner: SRI MD SHABAZFor Respondent: sRr swARoop ooRlLLA, spL.G.p for state Tax

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Joint Venture of Tata Projects Limited and Raghava Constructions, filed a writ petition challenging an impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 27.11.2024 passed by the Appellate Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Respondent No. 2) under the CGST/TGST Act, 2017. The petitioner also challenged recovery notices dated 12-12-2024 and arrear notices dated 09-01-2025 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Respondent No. 1). The core of the dispute revolved around the appellate authority's failure to consider additional submissions filed by the petitioner. The petitioner sought to declare the impugned order and notices void, illegal, and without jurisdiction, and requested a direction to reconsider their rectification application.

Held

The Court held that, by consensus of both parties, the impugned appellate order dated 27.11.2024 was set aside. The reasoning was based on the admitted fact that the additional submissions filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority were not considered. The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the appellate authority on 23.04.2025 at 11:30 AM, without requiring separate notice. The appellate authority was instructed to rehear the petitioner and pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, duly taking into account the Annexure-P7 (additional submissions). The writ petition was disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. No costs were awarded. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, were also closed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 27.11.2024, passed by the Appellate Joint Commissioner of State Tax, is void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India, by virtue of not considering the additional submissions filed by the petitioner? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the appellate authority failed to consider crucial additional submissions (Annexure-P7) filed before it, rendering the appellate order unsustainable. They sought to set aside the order and have it reheard with consideration of these submissions. Respondents' contention: The learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, for the respondents, fairly admitted that the additional submissions were not considered by the appellate authority. They consented to the setting aside of the appellate order and a fresh consideration.

Sections Cited

CGST/TGST Act, 2017

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[ 34461 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION NO: 5646 OF 202s Between: It//s. Joint Venture of Tata Projects Limited and Raghava Constructions, 1-7-80 to 84 Mithona Towers-1 , Prenderghast road, Secunderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana- 500 003 l, Suresh Singhvi, S/o Jodhraj Ji Singhvi aged 44 years, Rl/o. C504 Cloud9 Ahinsa Khand 2 lndirapuram Ghaziabad AND 1. 2. 3. 4. ...PETITIONER Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Begumpet Division, Circle- ll, H.No. 6- 3-789, sth Floor Pavani Prestige, Ameerpet, Hyderabad 500 016. Appellate Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Panjagutta Division, Vth Floor, CT Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500 001 . Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Begumpet Division, STU-I, H.No. 6-3- 789,6th Floor Pavani Prestige, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, Telangana- 500 016. State of Telangana, Through Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department (Commercial Tax), Hyderabad, Telangana-500 001 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring i. That impugned Order in From GST APL-04 bearing Ref. No. 2D361124032945F dated 27.11 .2024 by the Respondent No.2 under the provisions of CGST/TGST Act, 2017 as being void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and without authority of law, apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia, and to consequently set aside the same and pass such further or other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the ci.cumstances of the case. ii. With direction to consider the rectification application filed and dispose of the same after giving an opportunity of being heard expeditiously as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit ard proper in the circumstances of the case. iii. That recovery notice dated 12-12-2024 issued by the Respondent No 1 under the provisions of CGST/TGSf Act, 2017 as being void, arbitrary, illegal without jurisdiction and without authority of law, apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1 Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of India, and to consequently set asicle the same and pass such further or other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of th 3 case. iv. That arrear notice dated 09-01-2025 issued by the Respondent No. 1 under the provisions of CGST/TGST Act, 2017 as being void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and without authority of law, apart from being violativt,r of Articles 14, 19(1Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia, and to consequentty set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under liection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in sr.rpport of the petition, the High Court may be cleased to stay operation of recover.v notice dated 12-12-2024 passed by the Resp,ondent No. 1. Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstrances stated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High Court may be ltleased to stay operation of lmpugned Order-ln-Appeal vide Ref. No. 2D361 124r.)32945F dated 27.11.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 2. lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under S;ection 151 CPC praying that in the circumst:rnces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be oleased to stay operation of arrear notice dated 09-01-2025 passed by the Responrient No. 1. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MD SHABAZ counsel for the Respondents :sRr swARoop ooRlLLA, spL.G.p for state Tax

The Court made the following: ORDER lA NO: 2 OF 2025

THE HON,BLE THE ACTING CHIEF'JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITON No.S 646 of 2o25 ORDER (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog Paul): Sri Venkata Prasad P., learned counsel represents MD' Shabaz, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, for \ ' the respondents

With the consent, hnallY heard

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties fairly admitted that the additional submissions (Annexure-P7) filed before the appeliate authority were not considered by the appellate authority and therefore, the appellate order dated 27.11-2024 may be set aside and the appellate authority may be directed to pass a fresh order by taking into account the Annexure-P7. 4. In view of consensus arrived at, the impugned appellate order dated 27 .11.2024 is set aside. The petitioner sha'll appear before the appellate authority on 23.04.2025 at 11:30 A'M', for which no separate notice will be required to be issued' The I

2 appellate authority shall rehear the petitioner ancl 1.,2s5 a fresh order in acc,trdance with lau, duly taking into zrccount the Annexure-Pi'. 5 The \\/:it Petition is disposed of without expressing any oplnlon on mtrlrts of the case. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shail also stand closed \ N, SRIHARI EPUTY REGISTRAR q //// ,,.\iI\i SEC]TION OFFICER To, 1 The Assistant commissioner of state Tax, Begumpet.Division circle-^ll,^ H ti;;"-Jjiss,-sih Fi;|. P;;iFieitig"''nmEerpbt' Hvderabrtd 500 016' The Aooellate .loint Commissioner of State T-11 l3llaOutta Division' Vth ii"'"l,'ii C,,rn"tex. Nampally, Hyderabad - 500 001 ' TheDeoUtVCommissionerofStateTax,BegumpetDivision,sTU-1,HNo.6- i:7e6',Litt',F,;.'i pr"i,ii p",iiid"l nr"ijip"tiHvoerabad. rela'rsana- 500 016 The Princioal Secretary to Government, Revenue pppgrtmenr (Commercial +;l: 5i;i5;;i =-"Cnsri,u, l-lvo""bad, relansana-500 001 One CC to SRr MD SHABAZ, Advocate lOPUCl One CC to SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPL'G P for State Ta>r' [OPUC] 2 5 6 7 BSK LS 4 Two CD CoPies k ?

HIGH COURT DATED:1010412025 ORDER WP.No.5646 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I o\r ritf s.4 ( r€ e o .-) 2E itra 296 .J l ( ,+ ! * l;.r,, -' . .- i' ----:--.:-.: -r. _ ( z\ \^ f @

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.