M/S. Rajeswara Reddy Avula vs. The Union Of INDIA
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 31.08.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (GST), was liable to be set aside. The reasoning was that the Proper Officer, despite receiving the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice, failed to consider it. The Court acknowledged that even assuming the petitioner did not attend personal hearings, the Proper Officer had an obligation to consider the written objections submitted. The ratio decidendi is that a submitted reply to a show cause notice must be considered by the adjudicating authority, irrespective of the assessee's attendance at personal hearings. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Proper Officer to rehear the petitioner and pass a fresh order in accordance with the law expeditiously. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the case.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Rajeswara Reddy Avula, challenged an order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (GST) under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017, for the financial year 2019-20. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without considering their written objections/reply to the show cause notice, despite it being received by the Proper Officer. The petitioner contended that even if they did not attend personal hearings after two adjournments, the Proper Officer was still obligated to consider their submitted reply. The respondents, including the Union of India and the State of Telangana, did not object to the petitioner's submissions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 31.08.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (GST) under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017, is liable to be set aside for failing to consider the written objections/reply filed by the petitioner, despite the petitioner not attending personal hearings? The petitioner argued that the Proper Officer was bound to consider their reply to the show cause notice, even if they failed to attend personal hearings. They relied on the principle that a submitted reply must be considered. The revenue/State did not present any arguments against this contention, indicating no objection to the petitioner's submission.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 168-4
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
[ 3430 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G,RADHA RANI WRlT PETITION NO: 36627 OF 2024 Between: M/s. Rajeswara Reddy Avula, Apgate-204, My Jewel Home, Madinaguda, Hyderabdd, Telangana - 500049, Rep. by its Proprietor, Rajeswara Reddy Avula. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of lndia, Through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi - '1 10001. 2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue (CT) Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana.
The Assistant Commissioner (GST), Charminar DC Office, I Floor, Gagan Vihar Building, M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad, Telangana -500001 .
The Goods and Service Tax Council, Rep. by its Secretary, GST Council' Secretariat, 5th Floor, Tower-ll, Jeevan Bharti Building, Janpath Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-1'10 001 .
The Central Board of lndirect Taxes and Customs, Rep. by its Chairman, .Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, Central Secretaria
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.