M/S. Olectra Greentech Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner (St) Stu-2
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Olectra Greentech Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Appellate Joint Commissioner of State Tax (2nd Respondent) dated November 3, 2023. This order confirmed the Deputy Commissioner's (1st Respondent) order dated May 31, 2022, and proceedings in DRC-07. The challenge pertains to the tax period of October 2018 to December 2018. The petitioner sought to set aside these orders as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of natural justice for failing to address their contentions. They also sought to restore an earlier order by the 1st Respondent dated July 25, 2019, which sanctioned a refund of Rs. 2,50,00,000 for the same tax period. The petitioner also filed an interlocutory application seeking a stay of proceedings.
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.6503 of 2024 dated March 13, 2024. As per the consensus reached by the parties, the petitioner agreed to deposit 20% of the tax liability, as directed by the appellate authority, by filling up Form GST DRC-03. Crucially, Clause 5 of this form must clearly mention that the part deposit is being made against the challenge to the Order-in-Appeal and that the petitioner intends to approach the Tribunal. The Court did not explicitly address the legality or arbitrariness of the impugned orders nor did it directly rule on the restoration of the refund order, as the matter was settled by consent and reference to a previous order. The ratio decidendi appears to be that in cases where a consensus is reached and a petitioner agrees to comply with interim directions as per a prior High Court order, the writ petition can be disposed of on those terms, especially when the GST Appellate Tribunal is not yet functional.
Key Issues
1. Whether the orders of the 1st and 2nd Respondents are liable to be set aside as illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction for failing to deal with the contentions raised by the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, as contemplated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the order passed by the 1st Respondent sanctioning the refund of Rs. 2,50,00,000 for the period October 2018 to December 2018 should be restored as valid and sustainable? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the appellate authority failed to consider their contentions, rendering the order illegal, arbitrary, and violative of natural justice. They sought the restoration of the refund order. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue or state respondents. However, the parties arrived at a consensus for the disposal of the petition.
Sections Cited
Section 112(7)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER -7
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAIYIJI WRIT PETITION NO.85O4 OF 2024 ORDER (per Hon'ble SP,J) Heard Sri S. Dwaraknath, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Sri Harsha, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for Special Government Pleader for State Tax for respondent Nos. I to 3 and Sri B. Mukher;'ee, learned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.4. 2. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties arrived for a consensus and urged that this petition may be disposed of in terms of the order passed 1n W.P.No.6503 of 2024. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will deposit 2Ooh of the tax liability, as ,/ I
'i+' 2 directed by thr: appellate authority, by filling up Form GST DRC-03, wherein at Clause-S it must clearly be mentioned that the part deposit is being made against the challenge made to the Order-in-Appeal against which they have come to the High Court and further against which they intend to approach the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of order passed in W.P.No.6503 if 2024 dated 13.O3.2024. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, sha_Il also stand closed. T. JAY ASSISTANT REGI ASREE SJBAn //II b NO SECTIO FFICER
The Deputy Commissioner (ST) STU-2, Begumpet Division, Hvderabad-500
To,
J. 4. 5. o.
MBC GJP The Appellate Joint Commissioner of State Tax, punjagutta Division, Hyderabad-500 081. IIS ?l,l"lp"] Sjcretgry to Government, Revenue (CT-H) Deparrment, Stare or r etangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Se^cretary,-Union of lndii, Ministry-of Finance, Jeevan Deep Building, 3rd Floor, Sansad Marq, New Delhi-1 i0 Obi. One CC to Sri Karthik Ramana puttamredqy Advocate tOpUCl One CC to Sri P.rSri Harsha , Advocate(OpiJCi one cc to sri Gadi Pravee.n Kumar. oeputy S<iticitor Generar of rndia lopucr (Atons with a copv of order dated ts.bi.loiqiiw.p.r"-.6's"oi'"i'i6iil""' Two CD Copies ' -
.G I HIGH COURT DATED: 0210412024 ORDER WP.No.8504 of 2024 i HE S'r4 oR 16. 18 JUN 204 oo ( (' a $ \---...:--2 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ):
Heard Sri Karthik Ramana puttamreddy, learned I counsel for thb petitioner and Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned I I Special Government Pleader for the respondents. II
The preSent Writ Petition has been filed seeking for I the following t'elief: I I. to set Aside the ord-er of 2,*t respondent in Appeal No.B/44/202Zlaatea 03. j 1.2023 J,or the kt-u peiod. Apil, i01g conftrming the brder of the 1,t respondent dated, 31.O5.2O22 and. proceeding in IDRC-]7 uide Ref.No.ZD36oS22o267689, d.oted. 31.O5.2022 as being illegal and arbitrartl. . ,, to restore the order passecl bg the 1a respondent in RFD- Offdated 13.O9.2O19 sanctionin4 the refund of Rs.4,55,OO,OOO/_ -.fir" tne tax peiod Apil, 2Ot9 to june, ZOlg as ualid and, f\ustainable and pass such other ordc,r. { THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY tr AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI 1 qIRIT PETITION No.65O3 OF 2024 ORDER:(per Hdn'ble Sn Jttsttce p.SAM KOSHY) 3. rne msLt Writ Petition has been filed challenging I the impugned tl5 G.S.T. Appel te Tribunal (for short "Tribunal"), as has been envis under Section 109 of the Central Goods 1 and Services Act, 2017, (for short "rhe Act, 2OlT"l has not I been constituJed. order primarily on the ground that the l l l I i Il J
ti ; 2 -EE IPSK,J & IVTR,J W.P.No.65O3 of 2O24 l
This Court had directed the learned counsel for the Department to seek instructions as regards the decision passed by the Bombay High Court in a batch of Writ Petitions where the challenge was to the order passed by the appellate authority under the G.S.T. leading case of which being W.P.No.1O883 of 2019
Learned counsel for the Department a epts the fact cc t { that in the said batch of Writ Petitions, th Chairman of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs had filed I an affidavit, dated 12.1O.2O22 whereby the Chairman had glven an undertaking that the Departmentl shall not be taking any coercive steps against the assessees pencling the law; I constitution of the Tribunal and it becomipg functional. nch of thelBombay High I by the Chairman of the ..,0 cu"tolns still holds I I I admittedl],1 thc factual The said order of the Division Be Court and tl-re undertaking given Central Board of Indirect Taxes good.
In the instant case also, matrix is that even though we are in the year, 2024, the 'l'ribunal till date has not been constituted/ tablished. In t i
ffi PSI(,J & TVTR,J W.P.No.65O3 of 2024 factual circumstances, we are of the t it would be more appropriate to immediately within a the date of it being 3 which all the challenges to the orders G.S.T. Appellate Authorities are being way of Writ Petitions before this High Court. hear the appeals or the Writ Petitions itself tion at this juncture permitting the s the interim relief raised by the petitioner, d be more appropriate if the petitioner is i lor ,1" the absence passed by challenged In the absen of the Tri bu nal being functional, we are Ien compelled to tertain these Writ Petitions and keep them pending admitting the same till the Tribunal is establish coming up forilhearing whichever is earlier. ":* i eI pven
In th
As reg considered oJnion tt,, I dispose of thet writ Peti I petitioners to hpproach period of thle (s; m established/ Jr"tio.,"t. the Tribunal onths from I directed to pa! ilne 2Ooh of the tax liability as assessed by I I the i kihe considering fact that the Chairman has already given an underta that no coercive steps shall be taken, nonetheless, we are of the view that in order to strike a balance it 4 the Assessing Officer, in terms of Section 2 of the Act, 1[ I mr I 2O 17 within a period of four (4) weeks fro today. The authorities concerned shall thereafter be r trained from CS I taking any coercive steps for the enforceme t of the order f rsx,"r a, ivrR,.r w.P.No.65O3 of 2024 n I of the Assessing Olficer and the Appellate A thority tiil the disposal of the appeal 3 I cerned, the first appeal. was partly f 2O9o after lOo/u already nlor Counsel learned counsel for the petitioner submi that he had deposited an amount of Rs.24,OO,OOO/- i.e., O7o that was 9. So far as the interim deposited is 10. The prayer made by the learned allowed reducing the tax demand, the deposi 1O'%, of the tax demand before hling the first appeal wo be surplus of thc prescril;ed 1O%n of the tax in dispute, he rnay be required to be paid at the time of liling of He further submits that as the first ap perm ittcd to make the necessary deposit taking credil of the excess amount of deposrted at the time of hling of the first ap appearing Ibr the petitioner seems to reasonable. Accordingly, in terms of Section 112(7)(b) of e CGST Act
5 i I ! I the petitionerlwould be required to deposit 2O"h of the tax in dispute, "rJ". ,^Urr,* credit of the excess amount of 1o% I to the revised ltax demand determined in the first appeal. i I
The payihent of the 2O"l' of ta-x liability, as has been I directed as interim measure to the petitioner, shall be done PSK,J & NTR,J W.P.No.55O3 of 2O24 to thc I-Iigh P.SAM KOSHY, J N. TUKARAMJI, J I by filling ", fo GST DRC-03 must clearlv be mentioned that -.a" "gui^J tr,. "nrrr.nge macl against *ti"tl tn"y have come , wherein at Clause the part deposit is b e to thc Order-in-AP Court the Writ Petition stands disposed of 8it eing peal and the ^iJ"t which they intend to approach further ag Tribunal. L2. Accordingly, The any March 13th, AQS rl ,1 i i re shall bJno order as to costs. corr""J.,,ty, miscellaneous petitions pending, if , =nurr "Ja closed. 24 I I I 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.