M/S. Bhagyalaxmi Cotton Industries vs. Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Bhagyalaxmi Cotton Industries, filed a Review Petition No. 1 of 2025 seeking to review an order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the Division Bench-II in Writ Petition No. 15150 of 2024. The original writ petition had questioned the validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that this specific relief, concerning the constitutionality of a statutory provision, could not be decided by an Appellate Authority. The respondents, including the Assistant Commissioner (ST) and the State of Telangana, were represented. The petitioner sought the restoration of the writ petition to allow for the argument and decision on the constitutional validity of the said section.
Held
The Court found substance in the petitioner's argument that the Appellate Authority of the department lacks the power to decide the constitutionality of a statutory provision. Consequently, the Court recalled its previous order dated 02.01.2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 15150 of 2024. The Writ Petition was restored to its original number. The ratio decidendi is that constitutional challenges to statutory provisions, which cannot be addressed by departmental appellate authorities, are maintainable before the High Court under its writ jurisdiction. The operative direction was the restoration of the writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should restore Writ Petition No. 15150 of 2024 for deciding the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, given that an Appellate Authority cannot adjudicate on such a challenge? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the relief sought in the original writ petition, specifically challenging the validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, falls outside the purview of an Appellate Authority. Therefore, the writ petition should be restored to its original number to allow for the proper adjudication of this constitutional question. Revenue/State's Argument: The Special Government Pleader for State Tax raised no objection to the petitioner's prayer.
Sections Cited
Section 16(2)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
No.5, the Court made the following ORDER Sri Akruti Agarwal, learned counsel for the petifioner. Sri Swaroop Oorilla, Learned Special Government Plea(er for res ponde nt-State Tax. With the consent finally heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on para relief prayed for in the Writ Petition namely, 48 (b) and urge that the validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST AcUSGST 4c1,2017 was called in question. This relief cannot be decided by the Appellate Authority. Thus, the Writ Petition may be restored, so that, the said aspect can be argqgd and decided. Learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax has raised formal no objection. We find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Appellate Authority of the Department will not be able to decide the constitutionality of the statutory provision. Resultantly, the order passed in WP.No.15150 of 2024, dated 02.0'1.2025 is recalled. The Writ Petition is restored to its original number. Accordingly, this Application stands disposed of. A copy of this order be kept in the writ petition. .N. SRIH RI ASSISTANT REGIS R //// SECTION FFICER 2 To The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Warangal Urban-l Circle, Warangal. The Chief Secretary and Special Chief Secretary to Government (FAC), State Tax Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad. 1
3- The Secretary, Union of lndia, lvlinistry of Finance, Jeevan Deep Building, 3rd Floor, Sansad lvlarg, New Delhi-1 10 001 . 4- The Commrssioner (GST), Central Bg.'ard of lndirect Taxes and Customs, GST Policy Wing, Government of India, tVlinistry of Finance, New Delhi.
The Registrar Judicial- l, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.
The Section Officer, Writ D.B. Section, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.
One QQ to Ms. AKRUTI AGARWAL, Advocate IOPUCI U 91" CQ to SRt SWAROOP OORILLA, Learned Special Government Pleader {or State Tax, Advocate [OPUC] 9 One QQ to SRI cADl PRAVEEN KUMAR, Learned Deputy Solicitor Ggneral of lndia, Advocate (OPUC) 10.One CC to Ms. B.SAPNA REDDY, Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, Advocate (OPUC) 11.Two GD Copies SA BS %
I HIGH COURT DATED:0710312025 ORDER REVIEW No.1 of 2025 IN WP.No.15150 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE I.A AND RESTORING THE W.P E lt1 ST l'E. 2[25 I fl 1 A 1,1 t t c F p e ",\ ! Zo \ + ()
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.