M/S.Dott Services Limited vs. State Of Telangana
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the fJllowing: ORDER 1i t; k 1l ll lr II lr I l, l, l : i
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI W.P. No. 5aa6 of 2o24 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sn Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr.Kailash Nath P.S.S., learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3 and Mr.Dominic Fernandez, iearned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, for respondent No.
Perused the entire record.
The challenge in the present writ petition is to the Demand Order DRC-07, dated 30.12.2023, for the tax period July, 2017 to March, 2018 under the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act,2Ol7 ("IGST ActJ and Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('CGST Act').
One of the primary contentions raised by the petitioner in assailing the Demand Order is on the ground that the impugned action being bad for the reason that for the same cause of action, the Central Authority i.e., respondent No.4 has already initiated action and has passed the Order-in-Original on 31.10.2023. It has also been informed that the order passed by respondent No.4 is already under challenge before this Court in W.P.No.1357 of 2024 and where there is also an interim order granted by this very Bench on l2-Ol'2O24. In view of the aforesaid developments, learned counsel for the petitioner
E=:qE \ 2 submits that under the provisions of Section 6 of CGST Act, the Demand Order now, been issued by respondent No.2 is per se bad, illegal and unsustainable.
On the previous date of hearing, we have directed the State counsel to seek instructions as to how the subsequent proceedings by the State Authorities would be maintainable.
Today, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax enters appearance and makes his submission that there appears to be lack of information to the State Authorities being provided from the petitioner side in respect of the Order-in-Original passed by respondent No.
He further submits that there also appears to be no timely information provided by the petitioner in respect of the order passed by respondent No.4 before the impugned order was passed. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed. 6. [t was a]so the contention of the learned State counsel that the Central Government has issued a Circular dated 23. 1 1 .2023 vide Circular No.4 of 2023, which mandates that the orders passed in original have to be uploaded electronically on the portal so far as legal enforceabilitSz is concerned. Learned counsel further contended that in the instant case, as the order has since been not uploaded, the action on the part of the State Authorities cannot be found fault with.
Considering the provisions of Section 6 of CGST Act, what is apparently evident is that once when the proceedings have alreadv
3 I been dra'"r.n and finalized on the same set of facts and issue, there cannot be subsequent proceedings again drawn. Undisputedly, in the instant case, respondent No.4 had already initiated proceedings and had concluded the same by passing the Order-in-Original on 31.10.2023. The said order has also bee n assailed by the assessee before this Court in W.P.No.1357 of 2024 and there also appears to be an interim order granted by ttris Court on 12.01.2024. 8. Given the said facts and circumstances of the case and in the teeth of Section 6 of the CGST Act, we are of the considered opinion that the two grounds raised by the State Authorities would nol be sustainable. Firstly, mere not uploading of the order passed by the Central Authorities does not by itself empowers the State agencies to again initiate the proceedings in which the Central Authority i.e., respondent No.4 has aiready initiated and passed an Order-in- Original. As regards the second ground raised by the learned State counsel that lack of proper and timely intimation by the petitioner, a correspondence made by the petitioner would show that the petitioner has in fact intimated the respondent authorities in this regard time and again. Moreover, from the pleadings itself, it reflects that the Order-in-Original passed by respondent No.4, dated 31.7O.2023 was endorsed to the State agencies which is sufhcient to draw an inference that the State Authorities were aware or atleast were informed about lhe proceedings drawn by respondent No.
I
ffi. ,] 4
In vieu, thereof, \r,e are of the considered opinion tha[ thc impugned Demand Order dated 30.12.2023 for the tax period July. 2017 to March, 2018 would not be 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 MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //// To, secrrot-orrrcen The Secretary, Department of Revenue (Commercial Tax), State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad The A-ssistant Commissioner (ST),, Madhapur-8 Circle, Madhapur Division, Hyderabad The Commissiorier of State Taxes (Commercial Tax Department),' C.T.Complex. NamPally, HYderabad The Additional Conimidsiorier,, Office of the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad GST Commissionerate, GST Bhavan, LB Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 500 004 One CC to Sri Kailash Nath P. S. S. Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to Sri Swaroop Oorilla, Special Government Pleader , High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] One CC to Sri Dominic Fernandez, Senior SC for CBIC(OPUC) Two CD Copies I 1 2 J 4 5 tl
B. MBC KKSI l) iil.l il
, ii 1i HIGH COURT . DATED: 2110312024 ORDER WP.No.5886 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t 03HClYds3a t.r s 3H 1tIo I <) 7_ ) $) W lnr t,0 ? t oc (Eoro k jl : li li rl ,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.