Pradeep Chauhan vs. The Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Pradeep Chauhan, a Chartered Accountant, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original No. 68/2024-25-GST dated December 30, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Taxes (4th respondent). The petitioner claimed to have filed a reply to the show cause notice on June 12, 2024, and produced a document with a departmental seal as proof of acknowledgement. The respondents, represented by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), contended that no such reply was received and that the document produced by the petitioner lacked a signature to validate the seal, thus raising a disputed question of fact regarding the filing of the reply. The impugned order recorded that no defence was submitted by the assessee.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition should not be entertained as there is a disputed question of fact regarding whether the petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notice. The Court noted that the petitioner admittedly has a statutory and efficacious remedy of appeal against the impugned Order-in-Original dated December 30, 2024. Therefore, the Court relegated the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal. The Court directed that if the petitioner prefers an appeal within thirty days from the date of the order, the appellate authority shall consider all grounds raised in the appeal and decide it in accordance with the law, without the limitation period being a bar. The Court also granted liberty to the petitioner to file the appeal physically if it cannot be accepted through the electronic mode. The Court made no observation on the merits of the case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original when a statutory and efficacious remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, particularly when the filing of a reply to the show cause notice is a disputed question of fact? (Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they had filed a reply to the show cause notice on June 12, 2024, and presented a document with the department's seal as evidence of acknowledgement. Respondents' contention: The respondents argued that no reply was received, and the document produced by the petitioner lacked a signature to authenticate the departmental seal, making the filing of the reply a highly disputed question of fact. They contended that such disputed facts should be adjudicated by the appellate authority.
Sections Cited
Section 107, CGST Act, 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following ORDER
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA \IIRIT PETITION No.2231 of 2025 ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog Paul) Ms. K.Annapurna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Srikanth Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, for the respondents. 2 . The challenge mounted in this writ petition is to the Order-in-Originai No. 68/ 2024-25 -cST, dated 30. 12.2024, passed by respondent No.4, which is, admittedly, an appealable order.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice on 12.06.2024
However, learned counsel for the respondents raised an objection and urged that no such reply has been received by the respondents and therefore, in paragraph 25.3 of the impugned order, it was recorded that no defence was submitted by the ASSCSSCC.
2
Learned counsel for the petitioner placed :eliance on page No.41 of the documents annexed to the writ pr tition and urged that the seal of the department is affixed on it. vhich shorvs the acknowledgement of the said reply.
Faced rvith this, learned counsel for he respondents submits that nobody's signature is there on tt.r seal which can give some credibility to the seal. Thus, this is r highly disputed question of fact whether the petitioner has fi1ed z ny such reply or not and this can be gone into by the appellate aul eority. 7 . Heard the parties on this aspect
Against the impugned order-0in-original, <L Lted 30.12.2O2+, the petitioner, admittedly, has a statutory effic t clous remedy of appeal. In vierv of the disputed questions of fact r :rng involved, we are not incfinecl to entertain this writ petition an ] deem it proper to relegate the petitioner to avail the remedy : appeal. If the petitioner prefers the appeal within thirty days I om today before the appeilate authority, the said authority shall consider all the grounds raised in the appeal and decide it in accr rdance with law The limitation will not come in the way of thc petitioner if the _;t-:sq J appeal is preferred within the aforesaid time. It is a-lso observed that if the petitioner's appeal is not accepted through the electronic mode, Iiberty is reserved to the petitioner to file the appeal physically within the aforesaid time
With the aforesaid and without expressing any opinron on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed .A. PRATHIMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Note : That the name of the counsel for the Respondents was wrongly read in the order dated 06-03-2025, in WP.No.2231 of 2025, and the same has been corrected and substituted suomotu. This amended order shall be substitute the earlier Order, which as already been dispatched on 22-03-2O25. LA.PRATHIMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //// ,4 \-/ SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Chairman, Central Board of lndirect Taxes and Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia.
The Commissioner of Central Tax, Secunderabad GST Commissionerate. Hyderabad.
The Superintendent (Anti Evasion), O/o GST Bhavan L B Stadium Road Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500004. 4. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Taxes, Tarnaka Division, 2nd Floor, Elegant Edifice, 3-4-11812, NR, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad - 500013. 5. One CC to SRI K.ANNAPURNA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] o One CC to SRI M.SRIKANTH REDDY, (SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR CBIC) Advocate [OPUC] z. Two CD Copies WSA GJP
r' HIGH COURT DATED:0610312025 AMENDED ORDER WP.No.2231 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. -. t: --;;:-:\- . \-\'. ,iAf6'-;::'i\ ",t. ..r\ '6:r) !" \, , q i,E[ ?$7i i'ii t .' ]"-'; :i,,, 1r:. . / tq ,/.' '- . ,; r,7.,''i''i|;.':' '-:':-1-_ :-:-?' O (.) ,{ \1, I
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.