M/S. Gaetec Sitar vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)

WP/7361/2024HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01014297202421 March 2024Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI6 pages

For Petitioner: SRI SHAIK JEELANI BASHAFor Respondent: SRl DOMINIC FERNANDES, Sr.S.C FOR CBIC

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The petitioner, GAETEC SITAR, a unit of SITAR under the Ministry of Defence, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 11.12.2023 passed by the Joint Commissioner (ST), Malkajgiri DC Office. The order pertained to the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner contended that the order was arbitrary, illegal, barred by limitation under Section 73(10) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, and not signed by a competent authority. They also challenged a Government Order (G.O. Ms. No. 118, dated 25.08.2023) as ultra vires. The petitioner sought to declare the order null and void and argued that the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal prevented them from seeking redressal there. The respondents included various GST authorities and the State and Union of India.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 11.12.2023 was not sustainable for the same reasons that led to the quashing of orders in previous, similar writ petitions (W.P.Nos.2851, 5375, 6671 and 7251 of 2024). Specifically, the Court found that the issues of limitation under Section 73(10) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, and the order being unsigned by the competent authority, were decided in favour of the assessee in those prior cases. Since the present petition's facts were similar and not disputed by the State, the Court concluded that the impugned order was liable to be set aside and quashed. The Court did not specifically address the challenge to G.O. Ms. No. 118, dated 25.08.2023, as the primary relief was granted based on the invalidity of the order itself due to limitation and procedural defects.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 11.12.2023, passed by the 1st Respondent for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018, is barred by limitation as contemplated under Section 73(10) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the impugned order is bad in law for not being signed by the competent authority as required under the GST Rules? 3. Whether G.O. Ms. No. 118, dated 25.08.2023, issued by the Government of Telangana, is ultra vires to Section 168A of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was barred by limitation under Section 73(10) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, and was not signed by a competent authority. They also contended that G.O. Ms. No. 118, dated 25.08.2023, was ultra vires Section 168A of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017. The petitioner relied on previous decisions of the same bench in similar writ petitions (W.P.Nos.2851, 5375, 6671 and 7251 of 2024) where these issues were decided in favour of the assessee. Respondents' Arguments: The learned counsel for the State did not dispute the petitioner's contentions regarding the facts and the previous judgments.

Sections Cited

Section 73, Section 73(10), Section 168A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[ 337e ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 7361 OF 2024 Between: lV/s. GAETEC SITAR, (Gallium Arsenide Enabling Technology -CCnlfe) Society for lntegrated Circuit Techriology and Applied Reseaich (A Unit of SITAR - Minisfl of Defdnce) Government of ln-d'ia, Vignyanakancha Po^sl-, Hyderabad - 500 069- R. R Dist. , Siate of Telangana. Rep. 6y'its Executive Officer (Finance) Mr. B. Aravind Ku mar ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Commissioner (ST), Ivlalkajgiri DC Office, Malkajgiri, Medchal- Malkajgiri District. The Commercial Tax Officer, Saroor Nagar Circle, Saroor Nagar Division, Hyderabad The Joint Commissioner (ST), Saroor Nagar Division, Hyderabad. The State of Telangana, Rep- by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001 . The Central Board of lndirect Taxes and Customs, Rep. by its Chairman, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 100 001. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or direction declaring (1) the action of the 1st Respondent in passing the Summary of the Order, dated 1 1. 12. 2023, for the tax period July 2017 lo March 2018, as 2 3 4 5 tt I arbitrary, contrary to tlre provisions of the CGST / SGST Acts 2017, barred lry limitation as contemplated under Section 73(10) of the CGST/SGST Act 2017, in consonance with G. O. lvls. No. 118, dated 25. 08. 2023, as illegal, ultra vires to Section 1684 of the CGST/SGST Act 2017, without jurisdiction, bias, frivolous, and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia (2) declare G. O. tt4s. No. 1 18, dated 25. 08. 2023 issued by the Government of Telangana as ultra vires to Section 1684 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 and set aside the Summary of the Order, dated 1 1. 12. 2023 as null and void, (3) the Summary of the Order cannot be questioned before the Appellate Tribunal, since the Tribunal has not been constituted so far. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 suspend the operation of the Summary of the Order, dated 11 . 12. 2023 in Form DRC- 07 passed by the 1st Respondent, for the tax period 2017- 18 (From July2O17 to IMarch, 2018), pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, as otherwise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for Respondent No.1to3:SRl DOMINIC FERNANDES, Sr.S.C FOR CBIC Counsel for Respondent No.4 : GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Counsel for Respondent No.5 : SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY. SO.GEN

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE N.TUI{ARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO- 7361 of 2o24 ORI)ER: pe. Aon'bte Sri Justice P.SAM KoSlIr) Heard Mr.Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC and Mr.Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No'5' Perused the entire record.

The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order dated 11.12.2023 passed by respondent No'1 under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act.

Firstly, the challenge to the impugned order is that the impugned order is bad in law since it has not been signed by the competent authority as is required under the GST Rules and secondly, the entire proceedings stand barred by the limitation' 4. karned counsel for the petitioner submits that both these issues i.e., the aspect of limitation as also the aspect of the impugned order being unsigned by the competent officer have been dealt with by this Bench in a series of Writ Petitions i'e" W.P.Nos.2851, 5375, 6671 and 7251 of 2024' whetern on both these issues of limitation as well as the impugned order being I I

I 2 To, unsigned, have been decided in favour of the assessee setting aside/quashing the impugned orders.

The present Writ petition and its contents being similar to the facts of the Writ petitions, which are referred to in the preceding paragraph, have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the State.

In view of the same, we have no hesitation to reach to the conclusion that the impugned order for the same reason is not sustainable and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside/quashed.

The Writ Petition, to the aforesaid extent, stands allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,// \. SECTIONSilFiCER The Joint Commtssioner (ST), Malkaigiri DC Office' Malkajgiri' Medchal- Malkaigiri District ThecommercialTaxofficer,saroorNagarcircle'SaroorNagarDivision' Hyderabad. The Joint Commissioner (ST), Saroor Nagar Division' Hyderabad' The Principal secretary, state of Telangana, Revenue (cT) Department' Secretariat, HYderabad- The Secretary, Union of lndia, tvlinistry of Finance' North Block' New Delhi - 1 10 oo1 d customs' Ministry of The Chairman, Central Board of lndirect Taxes an Finance, Department of Revenue' North Block' Central Secretariat' New Delhi 1 2 a 4 5 6 l

7 \

One CC to SRI SHAIK JEELANI BASHA' Advocate' IOPUC]

One CC to SRI DOIUINIC FERNANDES' SR S'C FOR CBIC IOPUCI

Two CCs to GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX' High Court for the State of / Telangana at HYderabad [OUT] 10.One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR' (Deputy Solicitor General of lndia)' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad' IOPUCI 1 1 . Two CD CoPies' BSK KKS 6 ;JI

I I HIGH COURT DATED:21 10312024 ORDER WP.No.7361 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS a II :\ L:. .S f !." /a t\ \t- (:( ll 0 flAY 2024 I .',!rl/1 rl\r' _i- --./. &)c4' go fi

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.