M/S. Sri Krishna Enterprises vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax

WP/18154/2024HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01035068202413 February 2025Bench: SUJOY PAUL,RENUKA YARA5 pages

For Petitioner: SRl. V. BHASKAR REDDY SENIOR COUNSEL REP, SRI V. S]DDHARTH REDDYFor Respondent: SRI T. SANJAY REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sri Krishna Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated March 27, 2024, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals-I). This order confirmed the action of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax in inserting a negative block on the petitioner's Input Tax Credit (ITC) in their Electronic Credit Ledger. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to declare this action illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, and to set aside the impugned order. They also sought an interim direction to revoke the negative blocking of their ITC to enable them to file monthly returns, citing irreparable loss and hardship. The respondents are various GST authorities. Interlocutory applications were also filed by both parties.

Held

The Court noted the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the Writ Petition had rendered infructuous. Based on this submission, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition. No costs were awarded. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's challenge to the negative blocking of ITC or the legality of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals-I). The reasoning for the petition becoming infructuous is not detailed in the provided text. Any pending interlocutory applications were also closed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in inserting a negative block on the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger, thereby restricting their Input Tax Credit (ITC), was illegal, arbitrary, high-handed, without authority of law and jurisdiction, and in violation of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the GST Act. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the blocking of ITC was illegal and arbitrary, causing them irreparable loss and hardship. They sought the revocation of this block to enable them to file their returns. The petitioner relied on the principles of natural justice and the relevant provisions of the GST Act. Respondents' Contention: The respondents' counsel submitted that the writ petition had become infructuous. No specific arguments regarding the merits of the ITC blocking were recorded in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[ 3446 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH 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: 18154 OF 2024 Between: M/s. SRI KRISHNA ENTERPRISES, Sy. No. 854/E, Shutter no. 4, Brindavan Colony, Burgula Village, Farooq Nagar l\rlandal, Telangana. Represented by its Proprietor Mr. Himanshu Joshi. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Superintendent of Central Tax, Shad Nagar CGST Range, Ranga Reddy GST Commissionerate, GST Bhavan, VIP Hills, Jaihind Enclave, Madhapur, Hyderabad. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Shad Nagar CGST Range, Shamshabad CGST Division, Ranga Reddy GST Commissionerate, GST Bhavan, VIP Hills, Jaihind Enclave, Madhapur, Hyderabad. 3. The Superintendent of Central Tax (Anti Evasion), Ranga Reddy GST Commissionerate, GST Bhavan, VIP Hills, Jaihind Enclave, Madhapur, Hyderabad. 4. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals- l), O/o. The Commissioner of Customs and Central Tax, Hyderabad Commissionerate, Hyderabad. 5. The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Ranga Reddy GST Commissionerate, GST Bhavan, VIP Hills, Jaihind Enclave, Madhapur, Hyderabad. 6. The Union of lndia, Represented by its secretary, Ministry of Finance, Central secretariat' New Delhi' ...nesronto=,rrs Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriale writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in passing the impugned order dated 27- 03- 2024 through which he has confirmed the order of the 2nd respondent in inserting negative blocking of ITC in the Electronic Credit Ledger as illegal, arbitrary, high handed, without authority of law and jurisdiction, in violation of principles of natural justice contrary to the 4-isions of the Act and set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as the H as oth IA NO: 10F 2024 lA NO: 3 oF 2024 lA NO: 2 oF 2024 on'ble Cor.rrt may deem fit and proper in the circumstan(;es of the case erwise the petitioner wil be put to irreparabre loss and hardshi p. Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the 2nd res pondent to forthwith revoke the negative bl0cking of the Electronic credit Ledger of the petitioner for enabling the petitioner to file its monthly returns pencJing disposal of the Writ petition and to pass such other order or orders as the Hon,ble Court may deem fit and l.rroper in the circumstances of the case as otherwise the petitioners wi, be put to irreparabre loss and hardship. Petition under Section 1 51 cPC praying that in the circums tances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may L)e preased to grant reave to fire additionar affidavit and consider the same as part and parcer of the main writ petition Between: 1. The Superintenden ff.:,?fu *tixl,?1,"33?"il1L::?1Jfi fl t:ff If Etgrj,lril%ffssI 2. The Assistant Con . gffixi*r+rcr*r +,n,$*x*Tffi .:tr#il 4. The Additionat Co ; iffi '4iJls,?' trlfr :: ilii Jff3Ei,',I.,"o/3 ;,,IlE ffi I'i: "' "l * E;#H B:,S.*,.," 1 "&?"'u?3?! ", "t, rt"ff1iit1 r*;; ". H elge, J l$x,o r fr: l . *:r"r,:,;*,"{,I,gB;ilior"sented by its secretary, Ministry of Finarrce, Centrar AND ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT No. 1to6 i il ri Mis. Sri Krishna Enterprises, Sy. No. 854/E, Shutter no. 4, Brindavan Colo Burgula Village, Farooq Nagar Mandal, Telangana. Represented by Proprietor Mr. Himanshu Joshi. ny, its ..,RESPONDENT/WRIT PET]TIONER Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 23-07-2O24 in WP No. 18154 ot 2024 and dismiss the above reterred Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. V. BHASKAR REDDY SENIOR COUNSEL REP SRI V. S]DDHARTH REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI T. SANJAY REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL

The Court made the following: ORDER

1 I THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL ' AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YAR-A ,, EIRIT PETITION No. 18154 OF 2024 ,' ORDER: (Per tti:L? Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog Paul) Sri V.Bhaskar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel al.)pearing for Sri V.Siddharth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Writ Petition has rendered infructuous

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismisserl having rendered infnrrluous. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also starrd closed .L.LAKSHMI BABU //// F i1 U ,,'\:" Y REGISTRAR ',,j sec'rtott oFFtcER To, BM LS

One CC to SRl. V. STDDHARTH FEDDY, Advocate tOpUCl

One CC to SRt. T. SANJAY REDDY, Senior SC FOd CB|C'tOpUCl

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT DATED:1310212025 ORDER rI Ii WP.No.18154 o12024 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTOUS WITHOUT COSTS tllad ]]'.,.

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.