M/S.Tara Agro Agencies vs. The Appellate Joint Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Tara Agro Agencies, filed two writ petitions before the Telangana High Court challenging orders passed by the Appellate Joint Commissioner (ST) and the Deputy Commissioner (ST) concerning tax and penalty for the tax period 2017-18. The petitioner sought to declare certain Government Orders and Notifications as ultra vires to Section 168A of the SGST/CGST Act, 2017. They also challenged the orders for being passed without jurisdiction, arbitrarily, with bias, contrary to the Act's provisions, and in violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner argued that the Appellate Tribunal was not constituted, preventing a second appeal. The orders under challenge included a Penalty Appeal Order dated 25.11.2024, an order dated 29.12.2023, and related summary orders and attachments for penalty, and a Tax Appeal Order dated 25.11.2024, an order dated 26.06.2023, and related summary orders and proceedings for tax.
Held
The Court was informed that the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petitions. The petitioner requested liberty to approach the Department and, if necessary, approach the High Court again. The other side had no objection to this request. Consequently, the Court dismissed both writ petitions as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. No costs were awarded. Any pending interlocutory applications were also closed.
Key Issues
1. Whether G.O.Ms.No 118 dated 25.08.2023 (Telangana) and Notification No.9/2023-Central Tax dated 30.06.2023 (for WP 825) and Notification No.9/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023 (for WP 1350) issued by the respondents are ultra vires to Section 168A of the SGST/CGST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner (ST) levying tax and penalty under Section 73 of the SGST/CGST Act, 2017, are barred by limitation, without jurisdiction, arbitrary, biased, contrary to the Act, and in violation of the principles of natural justice and the rule of law? 3. Whether the Penalty Appeal Order/Tax Appeal Order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the Appellate Joint Commissioner (ST) is liable to be set aside for merely extracting grounds of appeal without discussion and in a summary manner? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned G.O.s and Notifications were ultra vires Section 168A of the Act. They argued that the original orders levying tax and penalty were barred by limitation, passed without jurisdiction, and violated natural justice. They also argued that the appellate orders were passed summarily without proper consideration of grounds. The petitioner further argued that the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal prevented them from filing a second appeal. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state respondents.
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.