M/S Siemens Limited. vs. Superintendent Of Customs And Central Tax
Original PDF →Facts
M/s Siemens Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated March 30, 2022, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals-1), Hyderabad, which confirmed an order dated March 31, 2021, passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The impugned orders restricted the transitional credit claimed by the petitioner in its revised Form GST TRAN-1 and levied interest under Section 50 and penalty under Section 122(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner sought to quash these orders, arguing they were illegal and without jurisdiction. The revenue, represented by various GST authorities, were the respondents. The matter was before the Telangana High Court.
Held
The Court acknowledged that the impugned order is appealable before the Central Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, which is yet to be constituted. Citing previous orders in similar matters and an undertaking given by the Chairman of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, the Court directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the disputed tax liability in terms of Section 112(7)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, by filling up Form GST DRC-03, clearly mentioning the deposit is against the impugned order and for approaching the GST Appellate Tribunal. Upon compliance, the revenue was restrained from taking any coercive action based on the impugned orders until the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. The writ petition was disposed of in these terms.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition when the impugned order is appealable before the Central Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, which is yet to be constituted? The petitioner argued that due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal, the writ petition is maintainable. The revenue contended that the impugned order is appealable before the Tribunal. 2. What relief can be granted to the petitioner in light of the non-constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal? The petitioner sought a stay on coercive action until the Tribunal is constituted and the appeal is disposed of, having already deposited 20% of the tax liability. The revenue agreed with the approach taken by the High Court in similar matters, referencing an undertaking by the Chairman of CBIC.
Sections Cited
Section 50, Section 74, Section 112, Section 122(2)(b), Rule 121
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER lA NO: 1 OF 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.33929 ot 2022 ORDER: (Per Hon'bte Si Justice N. Tukaramji) This writ petition has been filed assailing the order in appeal dated 30.03.2022 in Appeal No. HYD-GST-HYC-APPI€8- 21-GST passed by the respondent No.3 whereby the Order in original dated 3'l .O3.2O21 passed by the respondent No.2 under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (tor short, 'the Act 2017') read with Rule 121 of ttrc Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short, 'the Rules 2017') along with demand of interest thereon under Section 50 of the Act and penalty under Section 122(2) of the Act2017. 2. We have heard Mr. Karthik Ramana Puftamreddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned counsel for the respondents.
During hearing the learned Senior Counsel for the Department would submit that, the impugned order is appealable before the Central Goods and Services Appellate Tax Tribunal, but the tribunal under Section 109 of the CGST Act is yet to be constituted. However, this Court in similar matters, by observing
2 SPJ&NTRJ wp 11929 202. the undertaking given by the Chairman of the Central Board of lndirect Taxes and Customs before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court that no coercive steps will be taken till constitution of the tribunal without keeping the writ petitions pending directed the petitioners to deposit the zOVo of the tax liability in terms of Section 1.12 of the Act, thereon the authorities are restrained from taking any coercive steps in execution of the orders of appeal and original authority, till the disposal of the appeal
Learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded that the tmpugned order is appealable before the Central Goods and Services Tax Appeflate Tribunar and that simirar writ petitions were disposed of by this Court, in the terms submitted by the learned counsel for the Department. Nonetheless pleaded that the petitioner had already deposited the 2Oo/o of the tax liability as needed under Section 112 of the Act. As such, by preventing the authority from coercive action basing on the impugned orders till delermination of the appeal, the writ petition may be disposed of. 5' Having regard to the submissions and agreement, we are of the considered view that directing the petitioner to satisfy the requirement of Section 112 of the Act, if not already fulfilled,
SP'&NTR' wp_33929 -N22 thereupon prohibiting the authorities from coercive action basing on the impugned order till the appeal is disposed of by the tribunal would be appropriate. Accordingly if the requirement of the deposit is not made good, ttrc petitioner is directed lo py 20o/o ot the tax in dispute, in terms of S€ction 112 (7)(b) of the Act by filling up Form GST DRC-03 by cleady mentioning in clause 8 that the deposit is against the impugned order in appeal to approach the GST Appellate Tribunal. On compliance, the revenue/respondents are restrained to take any precipitous exercise formed on the impugned orders, till disposal of the appeal. 6. ln the above terms, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions if any, stands closed. //II J .V. HARI PRASAD ASSrsrANr *ffz* SECTION OFFICER Tol1. Superintendent of Custorns and Central Tax, Range-ll, Hyderabad GST Commissionerate, Hyderabad-soo 00 1 .
Assistant Commissioner, Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Abids Division, Hyderabad-So0 0O1. 3. Additional Commissioner (Appeah-1 ), Hyderabad Cornmissionerate, Hyderabad-SOo 0O4. 4. The Secretary to Government, Union of lndia, Finance Departrnent, New Delhi.
Commissioner, Central GST, Abids Division, Hyderabad-s0o 0O1. 6. One CC to SRI KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY, Advocate [OPUC]
One CC to SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, senior standing counsel for CBIC [OPUCI B. Two CD Copies PSKg MR Y/
HIGH COURT " .i: DATED:2910412024 ORDER WP.No.33929 of 2022 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. -,,^,..1)* $)t.' 'i$\ tt + DESPA z .D .(r' i! Kw (, 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.