M/S. Mercedes-Benz Financial Services INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax

WP/5711/2025HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01011089202527 February 2025Bench: SUJOY PAUL,RENUKA YARA5 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Mercedes-Benz Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 17.08.2024 passed by the Appellate Joint Commissioner of State Tax. The petitioner sought to set aside this order and sought directions to carry forward an unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) balance of INR 25,82,522/- through Form GST TRAN-1, as per Section 140 of the CGST Act. The petitioner also sought a refund of pre-deposits amounting to INR 5,16,505/- paid during the appeal process. The petitioner had also filed an interlocutory application to stay the recovery of INR 25,82,522/- pursuant to the impugned order.

Held

The Court noted the consensus between the parties that the grounds taken in the appeal memo dated 27.02.2024 and a Division Bench judgment of the High Court had not been considered by the appellate authority. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned appellate order dated 12.08.2024. The matter was remitted to the appellate authority to pass a fresh order after taking into account all grounds presented in the appeal memo. 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 10.03.2025 at 11:30 AM, with no separate notice required.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner is eligible to carry forward the unutilised ITC balance of INR 25,82,522/- through Form GST TRAN-1 as per Section 140 of the CGST Act? The petitioner argued that they are eligible to carry forward the unutilised ITC balance. The revenue's contention is not recorded. 2. Whether the Appellate Joint Commissioner considered all grounds taken in the appeal memo and a Division Bench judgment of the High Court relied upon by the petitioner? The petitioner contended that the appellate authority failed to consider the grounds raised in their appeal memo and a specific Division Bench judgment. The revenue agreed that these grounds were not considered.

Sections Cited

Section 140

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

t 3.+46 I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Origindl Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE.HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITI N 71',t OF 2025 Between: AND M/s. Mercedes-Benz Financial Services lndia Pvt. Ltd., (formerly known as Paimler Finencial Services lndia Pvt. Ltd.) Rep by its Authorized Signatory, Mr. Dinesh Sagade Having registered office at Plot No.47l48, . MB Towers, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad, felangana, 50008.| ...PETITIONER 1. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Madhapur-S Circle; 12th Flqor, Gagan Vihar Building Opp Gandhi Bhavan Nampally, Hyderabad - 500001 Telangana 2. The Appellate Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Hyderabad Rural Division, 5!h Floor, C.T. Complex, Nampally Hyderabad, Tela;lgana, 3. The State of Telangana, Through the Principal Secretary, Revenue Depar.tment (State Tax), Secretariat,. Hyderabad - 500004 ...RESPONDENTS Petitign under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in tfe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Diiection or Order, particularly one in the nature of Mandamus. (a) Set aside the lmpugned Order N0.2D360824057358Y dated t7.08.2024 passed by the Respondent No.2 and hold that the Petitioner is eligible to carry foruard the unutilised NCCF balance to the tune of INB 25,82,5221- through Form GST TRAN-1 as per Section 140 of the CGST Act, (b) Consequent to the aforesaid directions, direct the Respondents to refund the total amount of pre-deposits paid by the Petitioner amounting to INR 5,16,505 (comprising of pre-deposit of INR 2,58,253 paid at the time of filing the appeal before Respondernt No.2 vide Debit Entry No. DC36O2240168004 dated 27 February 2024 and pre-deposit of INR 2,58,252 through Form GST DRC-03 vide Debit Entry No. Dr136012501389S2 dated 21 January 2025), (c) Pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumsitances stated in the affidpvit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleqsed To stay recovery of INR 25,82,5221-pursuant to t!:re lmpugned Ordqr No.2D360824057:358Y dated 17.08.2024 passed by the Respondent No.2. Qognsel for the Petitioner: M/S. SWAPNA YELAGANDULA Ceunsel for the Respondents; SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GOVT PLEADER FOR STATE TAX

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE TION'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No.571 L of 2o25 ORDER (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog pa ): Ms. Y. Swapna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Swaroop oorilla, iearned Special Government pleader for State Tax, for the respondents. I I With the consent, frna_lly heard.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties agreed that the grounds taken in the appeal memo dated 27.O2.2O24 have not been considered by the appellate authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed heavy reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court specified in paragraph No.1.7 of the appeal which has also not been considered by the appellate authority. Therefore, it s agreed that the impugned appellate order dated rz.og.2o24 may be set aside and the matter may be remitted to the appellate authority to pass a fresh order by taking into account a-11 the grounds taken in the appeal 2 memo. I t

In view of consensus arrived at, the impugned appellate order dated I2.O8.2O24 is set aside. The petitioner shall now apgear before the learned appellate authority on IO.03.2O25 at '-1Y--':Bs*{-l:::::.- -'---*=-. I

) 11:30 A'M' for '"vkrir:h , no sepa-rate notice will be required to be issued. Learned appellate authority sha1l decide the aPPeal afresh in accordance with law by taking into accourLt the grounds taken in t1-re appeal memo' Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of' It is made 5 clear that this Court has not exPressed anY oPinion on merits of the case. No costt;' lnterlocutoryapplications,ifanypending,shalla1so stand closed' .A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //// To, '8:?ff v",,g1'J;llll}'&"Jz:lo'l?'3;:%,\1'I33iil'-?5:''"*:?i5i""?lq' Telangana ' Hi#ff 8li 'S:il3,3[T,':ffi:il?1,:'3s':1] #'#fJ::3: R'l ra. Division' ,1s3,:Tjii1!3"*iii};*tlr?P"'s:%"irt"J33?"""',RevenueDepartment

One CC to lilis Swapna Yelagandula' Advocate IOPUC] tl +u.?"J: T"r?E::iil?frt:iftate rax' Hish cou( ror the state or 6. Two CD Copies TJ BS +% [\ L _=:-- j ilcrroru oFFlcER I

HIGH COURT DATED:2710212025 ORDER WP.No.S711 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS =:-==-: ._ srAre';'\\ . , .\ (\( 0 I Itl 4 tc l_'l: 5 2[2 , \, r, i-.\ l t4 tu{ 1 (

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.