M/S. Anheuser Busch Inbev INDIA Limited Unit Charminar Breweries vs. The Additional. Commissioner

WP/5218/2025HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01010464202521 February 2025Bench: SUJOY PAUL,RENUKA YARA5 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Anheuser Busch Inbev India Limited Unit Charminar Breweries, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 27.11.2024, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Tax, Ranga Reddy GST Commissionerate. The OIO was issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, confirming fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The petitioner sought to quash this order, contending it was without jurisdiction. The petitioner's primary concern was to avail an Amnesty Scheme, which required payment of tax before March 31, 2025, and thus requested the appellate authority to decide any appeal within this timeframe. The respondent revenue authority submitted that the petitioner had a remedy of appeal.

Held

The Court held that the impugned Order-in-Original can be assailed before the appellate authority. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's anxiety regarding the Amnesty Scheme and the deadline of March 31, 2025, for payment of tax. However, the Court stated that the nature of urgency pleaded by the petitioner could be highlighted before the appellate authority, and it would be for the appellate authority to consider this aspect and decide the matter at the earliest. The Court explicitly stated that it was not inclined to interfere at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The writ petition was disposed of by reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Order-in-Original No. 119/2024-25-Adjn(ADC)-GST dated 27.11.2024, passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, is without jurisdiction and unsustainable. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the OIO was issued completely without jurisdiction and was unsustainable. Their primary anxiety was to take advantage of an Amnesty Scheme, which necessitated payment of tax by March 31, 2025. Therefore, they sought a direction for the appellate authority to decide their appeal within this stipulated period. Revenue's contention: The respondent submitted that the petitioner possesses an alternative statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order.

Sections Cited

Section 74, Section 73

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[ 34461 Between: M/S.ANHEUSERBUSCHINBEVIND-IALIMITEDUNITCHARMINAR BREWERIES, naMng'ifi;e'at sthTfoot' 510 and 51 '1 ' Minerva C^o^1nte1io il;;;,'- 'seii.,noera6ao, Hyderabad, Telanqana 500 uu3 ubT- b'o-nnicsizsSnt Zo "R-epreseiriJJ uv',it. Autho-rized signatory Ms. -Divya Mandkad, oesignated "Ls--s"nior - fulanager ^ Taxation, -Daughter- .of_.shri Narendra Mankad, Ii"J zs yeu;, Havinig .corporate office at 6th Floor, ci"6i-n"rrt eriioini]"ilar7n' rvr'nvaii iScn Pbrk' Phase 1v' Nasavara' Bengaluru, Kamataka 560 045 ,..PETITIONER HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TWENry FIRST 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 PETITION NO:5218 0F 2025 ...RESPONDENTS IANO:2OF 2025 AND THEADDlTloNAL.CoMMlSSloNER,officeofthePrincioalCommissioner Of Centrat Tax Ranga n"aoiEli-Cdiniii.son"rrt", GSt Bhavan H. No. 1- dtilTt"+il Vrp-iiiirsl,lZinino Efi clave, Madhapur, Hvderabad-500 08'l Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith'theHiEhCourtmaybe ;i";;;; io issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ' orde(s)' directions' ;;;;;g th" -pugned order-in-orisinal No i 19/2024-25- Adjn(ADC)-GST with o.R. No. 15312024-AdininOClOSi and DIN-20241 156YQ000000A9F7 dated 27.11.2024 enclosed as exntitjt, passed by Ld Respondent unde.r Section 74 of the CGST Act confirming iraud, wilful-misitatement or suppression .of facts to u"rOl1ir, as unsustainiOi" ,ni issued completely without jurisdiction, and to Lsue Orde(s), Directions, Writ(s) or any other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems iit *a p.p"rin the facts and circumstance of the case in the interest of justice. PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in supporlot ttre petition, if,"-Hign Court may be pleased to grant li"v J"-ir," ,itiation 'of ;;";t proceedingJ bv the Respondent basis the iTpy^SI"g Ordenin-Originat No. 1 1gt2O24_25-Adjn(ADC)_ GST with O.R. No. 1s312024- Adjn(ADC)GST and DrN 2oz411s6yao0o00oA9F7 dated 27.11.2024 passed by Ld. Respondent enclosed as Exhibit_1 Counsel foi the petitioner: SRI SHIVDASS REp. FOR Ms. ZUBTN J F POOVATHINKAL 9:IJ'.s-e.l.loj_th_e Respondents: Ms. pRAVAL|KA REp., FOR DOMIN|C FERNANDES SC FOR CBIC

The Couit made the following: ORDER

.:-1. ." \ TIIE HON,BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON,BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKAYARA WRIT PETITION No.5218 of2O2S ORDER (Per the Hon'ble the AL:ting Chief Justice SlioA Paul): Sri Shivdass, learned counsel represents Ms' Zubin J'F' Poovathinkal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms' Pravalika' learned counsel representing Sri Dominic Fernandes' learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, for the respondent'

Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the impugned Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 27 'll'2024 can be called in question by preferring an appeal under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2ol7 (f.or short, "the Act"). The only anxiety of the petitioner is that if Section 73 of the Act is held to be applicable' the petitioner can take advantage of Amnesty Scheme for which the petitioner has to pay tax before 3l O3'2O25' Thus' the appellate authority may be directed to decide the appeal within aforesaid time The other side submits that the petitioner has a remedy of appeal 4 Since the impugned OIO can be assailed before the 0 , 3 appellate authority, we are not inclined to interfere at this stage'

2 To, 4 KKS BS tt- The nature of urgency pleaded by the petitioner can be highlighted before the appellate authorify. It is for the appellate aut hority to consider the saicl aspect and decide the matter at the earliest.

With aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the ,:ase, this Writ Petition is disposed of by r.eserving liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed .S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //// S CTION OFFICER 'l . THE ADDITIONAL. COMMISSIONER, Office of the Principal Commissioner Of Central Tax Ranga Reddy GST Commissionerate, GST Bhavan H.No.'1-98/7/43, VIP Hills, Jaihind Enclave, Madhapur, Hyderabad-SOO 081

One CC to Ms. ZUBIN J F POOVATHINKAL Advocate [OPUC]

One CC to SRl. DOMINIC FERNANDES SC FOR CBIC IOPUC] Two CD Copies

URGENT HIGH COURT DATED:21 10212025 ORDER WP.No.5218 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS + .1i t.G ri '.F l ,\ l) \) 2 { FE$ 2$25 , LL ) 9- a,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.