M/S.Tara Agro Agencies, 6-4-74, 1St Floor vs. The Appellate Joint Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
M/s. Tara Agro Agencies, the petitioner, filed two writ petitions before the Telangana High Court challenging orders passed by the Appellate Joint Commissioner (ST) and the Deputy Commissioner (ST). The orders, dated November 25, 2024, and December 29, 2023 (in WP 825/2025), and June 26, 2023 (in WP 1350/2025), levied penalties and disallowed Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the tax period 2017-18 under the SGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the impugned G.O.Ms.No 118 and Notification No.9/2023-Central Tax were ultra vires Section 168A of the Act. The petitioner also contended that the orders were passed without jurisdiction, arbitrarily, with bias, contrary to the Act's provisions, and in violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner further highlighted that the Appellate Tribunal was not constituted, preventing a second appeal. The petitioner sought to set aside these orders.
Held
The Court did not decide the substantive issues raised by the petitioner. Instead, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petitions with liberty to approach the Department. The Court noted that the other side had no objection to this request. Consequently, the Court dismissed both writ petitions as withdrawn, granting the petitioner the liberty to approach the Department and, if necessary, approach the Court again. No costs were imposed. The interlocutory applications, if any pending, were also closed.
Key Issues
1. Whether G.O.Ms.No 118 dated 25.08.2023 (Telangana Government) and Notification No.9/2023-Central Tax dated 30.06.2023 (issued by the 7th Respondent) are ultra vires Section 168A of the SGST/CGST Act, 2017, and consequently, whether the penalty and tax orders passed by the respondents are null and void? The petitioner argued that these notifications/G.O.s were beyond the scope of Section 168A. The revenue did not record any specific arguments on this point in the judgment. 2. Whether the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner (ST) disallowing ITC under Section 73 of the SGST/CGST Act, 2017, were barred by limitation, without jurisdiction, arbitrary, biased, contrary to the Act, and in violation of principles of natural justice and the rule of law? The petitioner contended that the actions were arbitrary and violated natural justice. The revenue did not record any specific arguments on this point. 3. Whether the Appellate Joint Commissioner (ST) erred in passing the Penalty Appeal Order dated 25.11.2024 by merely extracting grounds of appeal without discussion, thereby confirming the lower authority's order in a summary manner? The petitioner argued that the appellate order was passed summarily without proper consideration. The revenue did not record any specific arguments on this point.
Sections Cited
Section 168A, Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
I \ THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PE:TITIOi{ Nos.825 and 135O of 2025 COMMON ORDER (Per ttrc Hon'ble tlle Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul): Sri Moharnmed Ra-fi learned couns<:I represents Sri Swarc,oJr Oorilla, learned Specia,l Government pleader for State Tax, for the respondent(s)-State Tax; Sri E,i. Mukherjee, learned corlnsel represenling Sri Gacli praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of Ind ia, for the respondent.(s)-Union of India and Sri Domini<: Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBltC, for the respondenl (s)-CBIC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seekrs permission of this Cotrr-t to withdraw the writ petitions wr.th liberty to the petitioner to approach the Department anrl if occasion arises, to auproach this Court again.
The other side has no objection aI Sri Shaik .Ieelani Basha, learned counsel lor the petitioner; a\ (-
Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty prayed [or. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, sha-[ also stand closed. "''-iig.tih'ffi8*BT.^'EiR I //// ECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 One CC to SRI SHAIK JEELANI BASHA' Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES' Sr' SC FOR CBIC IOPUC] 3p:,ffi i:,ifl 8ifl i"mYT),5',#th,%'"?'Jl,1?"i3:Io'3f"d'*o' TwoCCstoSPLGPFoRSTATETAX,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana 4 at Hyderabad [OUT]
Two CD CoPies 13- Y,4-
HIGH COURT DATED:0710412025 COMMON ORDER )*. zo ll'1 i, , 205 '.i\q:_=r * g.O WP.Nos.825 and 1350 of 2025 DISMISSING BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS AS WITHDRAWN, WITHOUT COSTS ttl ? 14 )a z\
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.