M/S. Bhavani Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Bhavani Constructions, filed two writ petitions before the Telangana High Court challenging orders passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act. In WP No. 8405 of 2025, the challenge was to an order dated 23.08.2024 and proceedings dated 23.08.2024 under Section 65 of the CGST Act, both passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST). In WP No. 8522 of 2025, the challenge was to an order dated 31.12.2023 under Section 73 of the CGST Act, and an appellate order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the Appellate Joint Commissioner (ST). The petitioner sought to declare these orders void, illegal, and violative of constitutional principles and natural justice. Interlocutory applications were filed seeking stay of proceedings and collection of tax.
Held
The Court held that both parties agreed that the impugned final orders and the appellate order were passed by travelling beyond the scope of the show cause notices. Based on this consensus, the Court decided to set aside the impugned final orders dated 23.08.2024 and 31.12.2023, as well as the appellate order dated 12.02.2025 in WP No. 8522 of 2025. The Court reserved liberty for the Proper Officer to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, ensuring that the petitioner is given an opportunity of personal hearing. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the cases. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly, with no costs.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned final orders dated 23.08.2024 (in WP No. 8405/2025) and 31.12.2023 (in WP No. 8522/2025) are void, illegal, and arbitrary for having travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notices issued to the petitioner, thereby violating principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether the appellate order dated 12.02.2025 (in WP No. 8522/2025) is liable to be set aside for failing to address the issue of the Proper Officer travelling beyond the scope of the show cause notice. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the authorities, while passing the impugned final orders, exceeded the scope of the show cause notices. This fundamental flaw renders the orders liable to be set aside. In WP No. 8522 of 2025, it was further argued that even the appellate authority failed to address this crucial aspect. Respondents' Arguments: The learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax fairly conceded that the concerned authorities had indeed travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notices while passing the impugned final orders.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 65
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 RENUI{J YAITA WRIT PETITON NoS.84OS & 8522 <tf 2025 COMMON ORDER (Per the Hon'bLe the Ading Ch)ef Ju;tice St joy Paul): lir i X{. Naga Deepak, learned counsel for tl-re petitioner and Sri f. Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assisrtant Government Pieader -epresents Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Governme nt F'leader for State Tax, for the respondents 2 IRt ga-,1 being had to the similitude of tl Le questions invoived. r izith the consent, matters were finallv hear(l .> 1't e s,ingular prayer raised in both the matters by learned c lunrtel for the petitioner is that rirhile passing the impugned firLal orders dated 23.O8.2024 ancl 3l .12.2023 respective y thre respondents have travelled bel,ond the scope of the sho-w cause notices. For this reason alonr:. both the impugned firrra.l orders must be jettisoned. lrurtht:r, the only difference in W.P.No.8522 of 2O2S is thtrt thr: petitioner approache C this Court against the appellate order dated 12 .O2.2O2 i zLsi well. It is canvassed that e.zen the appellate \ authority. tas not dealt with the aforesaid as pect ,,.vhether thL
2 Proper Ofhcer has travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice. 4. l,earned Special Government Pleader for State Tax' for the respondents, fairly submitted that while passing the impugned final orders, the concerned authority' indeed' travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice'
Therefore, it is agreed by both learned counsel for the parties that both the impugned final orders dated 23'O8'2024 and 31.1,2.2023 respectiveiy as well as the appellate order dated |2.o2.2o25inW'P.No'8522of2025maybesetasideby reserving liberty to the Proper Officer to pass fresh orders in accordance with law by giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
In view of consensus arrived at' both the impugned final orders dated 23'08. 2024 and' 31'12 '2023 respectively as well as the appellate order dated l2'O2'2025 in W'P'No'8522 of 2025 are set aside. The Proper Officer is at liberty to pass fresh orders in accordance with law by giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
3 l 7. \cc:ordingly, these Writ petitions are disposed of. It is made :l :ar that this Court has not expres sed a ny opinion on merits o ' tbr: cases. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shalt also stald r'losed //// P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA _?Tr*REGTSTRAR UECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Assis lant Commissioner (ST), Siddipet Circle, Nizarnabad Division Telangana The Comnrissioner of State Taxes, Commercial Ta>. Build ngs, Nampally, Hyderabad The Appell rte Joint Commissioner (ST), Secundrabad I)ivisior, Hyderabad One CC to SRI M.NAGA DEEPAK, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to SIPL. cP FOR STATE TAX, High Ccurt,fcr the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI Two CD Cc pies 2 o BSR LS J 4 5
HIGH COURT DATED: 2110312025 { l1r- s A/i A, (( at COMMON ORDER fo O lr 6 nPt 2025 ,;i C WP.Nos.8405 and 8522 of Z02S )t'sp.a'' ctt9A t t := DISPOSING: OF BOTH THE WRIT PETII'IONS, WITHOUT COSTS ?z 2 I g./",/.{5 .-
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.