M/S.Bharadwaj Auto Tech Private Limited vs. The Commissioner Of Central Tax.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, HP Petrol Pump, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Appeal dated January 17, 2025, passed by the 1st Respondent (Commissioner of Central Tax, Appeals-II). This order allowed an appeal filed by the 3rd Respondent (Assistant Commissioner, Medchal GST Commissionerate) against an Order-in-Original dated July 31, 2023, which was in favor of the assessee for the tax period 2017-18. The petitioner contended that their cross-objections, filed on May 29, 2024, before the appellate authority, were not considered. The respondents included various GST authorities and the Union of India. The petition sought to declare the appellate order arbitrary and invalid.
Held
The Court held that the impugned appellate order dated January 17, 2025, was to be set aside. This decision was based on the consensus arrived at between the parties. The Court agreed that the appellate authority had not considered the cross-objections filed by the petitioner. Consequently, the appeal was restored to its original number before the appellate authority. The appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal afresh, taking into account the cross-objections filed by the petitioner. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The petitioner was directed to appear before the appellate authority on April 21, 2025, at 11:30 AM, without requiring a separate notice.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Order-in-Appeal dated January 17, 2025, passed by the 1st Respondent, is arbitrary and invalid in law for failing to consider the cross-objections filed by the petitioner on May 29, 2024, contrary to the principles of natural justice and Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the appellate authority failed to consider their cross-objections, which were filed after receiving notice of the appeal. This omission rendered the appellate order arbitrary and contrary to law, as it denied them a proper hearing on all aspects of the dispute. They relied on the principle that all contentions raised by a party must be addressed by the adjudicating authority. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records that the parties agreed that the appellate order may be set aside and the appeal restored for fresh decision, implying an agreement to address the petitioner's grievance regarding the unconsidered cross-objections.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER I
THE HON'BL ETTIrACTING;ftf" JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL THE HoN'BLB sIur"'iistlcE RENUKA YARA P.No.8546 of o25 2 w. ORDER per the Hon'ble the Acting Ch)eJ Justice Sujoy Paut)" Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha' learned counsel for the Petitioner; Sri Dominic Fernandes' learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, for resPondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 and Sri B' Gadi Praveen Mukherjee, learned counsel representing sri Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of lndia' for respondent No.
With the consent, hnallY heard'
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties agreed that against the impugned Order-in-Original dated 31.07'2023' which was decided in favour of the assesseL' the Department preferred an appeal which came to be decided by the impug:ned Order-in-Appeal dated l7'Ol'2O25' It is agreed that the assessee, upon receiving the notice in appeal' also preferred a cross-objection on 07 '06 '2024 before the appellate authority which has not been considered and decided' Thus' it is agreed that the appellate order dated 17 'OL '2025 may be set l---- l-/ It_ 2 I I , \
i!- : 2 aside and the appeal may be restored to its original number with a direction to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh by taking into erccount the cross objection filed b5r the present petitioner. 4 stand closed In view of consensus arrived at, the impugnecl appellate order dated 1i..t)l.2O2S is set aside with the liberty prayed for. The petitioner r;.eall appear before the appellate aut_hority on 21.04.2025 at 1t:30 A.M. for which no separate notice will be required to be, issued. On such appearance, the appellate authority shal d,:oide the appear in accordance with ra\ .. S. Accordin13,y, this Writ petition is disposed of. Ii is made clear that this Ccr-rrt has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. No costs. Interlocurrrry applications, if any pending, sl:al1 also .A.SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGI EDOY TRAR //II B $ U SECTION OFFICER To,
The commissioner .f centrar rax., Appears-il, GST Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 2. rhe Joint commissioner of central rax, Lakdi-ka-pool, Hyderabacl - 500 004. 3. The Assistant comrrissioner (B clq ol, Medchal GST commissionerate, Lakdi-ka-Pool, Hyde"abad - 500 004. ' 4 Tf'g Spcretary, Ministry of Finance, Union of rndia, North Block. New Derhi I '10 001
The Ch{rman, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of indirect Taxes and o:iroms, Nortn'ero6k. C"riiar s"LieiriiiL-N;;,"#ihT'tij 001 . I
f
One CC to SRI SHAIK JEELANI BASHA' Advocate lOPUCl T.onecctoSRlDoMlNlCFERNANDES'seniorStandingCounselforCBlC. loPUcl 8-oneCCtoSRIGADIPRAVEENKUMAR,(DeputySolicitorGeneraloflndia)' ' Hil;'h Hfi iliini bt,i. & iEi,;s;;; ;i n1)oeiaoao' toPUCl
Two CD CoPies. I BSK M--
t t t HIGH COURT HACJ & RY,J DATED:0 4tO4tZOzS ORDER \ I^\IL -.-i - u; ' 1\',\ D :l 11 [in ?t25 v C) d-: ist-',tr4 WP.No.8S46 of ZO2S .DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS $.1 j5 \\ r \\
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.