BharatTaxGST

M/S. Raghava- Hes- Navayuga (Jv) vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax

Original PDF →
WP/3353/2024HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01006497202408 February 2024Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI7 pages
For Petitioner: SRI KARAN TALWARFor Respondent: SRI DOMINtC FERNANDES, Sr. SC FOR CBIC

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 3353 OF 2024 Between: AND 1. M/s. Raghava- HES- Navayuga (JV), Represented by Mr. p.prasad Reddv having its Registered Office at B- 2- 603t1i27 & 28, Ralhava pride, Road No. 10, Krishnapuram Street, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500082 ...PETITIONER The Additional Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad GST C_ommissionerate, GST Bhavan, LB Stadium Road, Basheer6agh, Hyderabad - 500004 2. The Superintendent of Central Tax, Adjudication Section, O/o Additional Commissioner of Central Tax, Hydera6ad GST Commi6sionerate, GST Bhavan, L.B. Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 5OOOO4 3. The Principal C_ommissioner of Central Taxes, Hyderabad GST Commissionerate, GST Bhavan, LB Stadium Road, Basheertiagh, Hyderabad - 500004 4. State of Telangana, Represented by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (State Tax) Secretariat, Hydeiabad - 500004 5. Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, Represented by its Secretary, North Block, New Delhi - 1 10001 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ - declaring the Order- in- Original No. 73IGST/2023- 24- Adjn. (ADC)- HYD- GST dated 28.1'1 .2023 passed by the 1st Respondent (impugned (i) ( ii) order) as without jurisdiction, erroneous, arbitrary, illegal, passed in violation of principles of natural justlce and mandatory procedure prescribed under law, in the interest of justice and equity; declaring that Petitioner is not liable to pay any amount, interest or penalty; in the interest of justice, equity and in accordance with the scheme of the GST Acts. 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 stay the recovery of (a) an amount of Rs. 38,26,88,524l- being the differential tax on the composite works supplied confirmed for the period July 2017 to March 2020, (b) an amount of Rs. 1,46,41,4741-being the GST short paid on the value of supplies compared to value as per RA Bills during the year 2017- 18 (c) an amount of Rs, 86, 12,490/- being interest on delayed payment for the period 2017- 18 to 2019- 20 (d) an amount of Rs. 7,83,83,101i- being the GST not paid under reverse charge mechanism on elements like NAC Cess, Labour Cess, Seigniorage charges and DMF/SMET charges (e) an amount ol Rs. 26,41 ,9171- on delayed payment of GST on undeclared turnover in their GSTR- 3B compared to turnover as per RA Bills during the period 2019- 20: (f) interest in respect of demands mentioned at (a), (b) and (d) above; (g) Penalty in respect the demands at (a), (b) and (d) above; (h) Penalty under Section 125 of the CGST Act 2017ffGST Act 2017 pursuant to the impugned Order- in- Original No. 73|GST12023- 24- Adjn (ADC)- HYD- GST dated 28 11 2023 passed by rhe 'tst Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KARAN TALWAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: SRI DOMINtC FERNANDES, Sr. SC FOR CBIC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: M/s. C.ROHINI SMITHA, AGP FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI B.MUKERJEE, REP. FOR SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERIAL OF INDIA

The Court made the following: ORDER

7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI W.P. No. 3353 of 2O24 OElf,)ER: per rro n'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KoSHv) Heard Mr.Karan Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.Dominic Fernandez, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3; Ms.C.Rohini Smitha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes appearing for respondent No.4 and Mr.B.Mukerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.

5.

Perused the entire record.

2.

The challenge in the present writ petition is to the Order-in- Original No.73lGST/2023-24-Adjn.(ADC)-HYD-GST dated 28.11 .2023, passed by respondent No. 1. 3. Though there are various grounds raised by the petitioner assailing the impugned order, the preliminary ground which was highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that it violates principles of natural justice. According to the petitioner, he was deprived of the right of personai hearing which now has 'become part and parcel of the procedure to be adopted by the respondents before passing the Order-in-Original. In the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that though

vry 2 the impugned order in paragraph No. 14 refet's to repeated intimations being sent to the petitioner on 09.OA.2023, 31.O8.2023 and 15.O9.2O23 for personal hearing, however, the notices issued in this regard were not served upon the petitioner. It is also the contention of the petitioner that upon the petitioner verifying the same from the Department, it has been learnt that the intimations for the aforementioned three dates of personal hearing sent were at a different email-id which was not the registered email-id of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner could not be served with those intimations which prevented him from availing the opportunity of personal hearing awarded by the Department.

4.

Learned counsel for the Department, on the other hand, submits that it appears that the petitioner was granted ample opportunity prior to the passing of Order-in-Original, however, he did not avail the same ald therefore, he cannot cry foul for not being given an opportunity of personal hearing.

5.

Be that as it may, considering the contents of paragraph No.14 of the impugned order, what primarily is reflected from the contents therein is that notices for personal hearing were issued to the petitioner on 09.O8.2O23, 31.O8.2023 and 15.09.2023. However, those intimations were sent at otula 1 23rediffmail. com, whereas, the registered email-id of subbu

3 the petitioner is raghava. construction ail.com. From the documents available, Iearned counsel for the Department does not dispute the fact that ttre petitioner had in fact much in advance brought to the notice of the Department so far as his registered email address being raqhava.constructions@RTnail.com is concerned. Given the said submission by the learned counsel for the Department, it appears that the notice for personal hearing has not been sent at raghava . construction{@gmail. com, but seems to have been inadvertently sent at the email reflected in the portal of the Department which is subbu potulal23rediffmail.com.

6.

Given the said circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that it appears to be a case where because of technicalities, the notices for personal hearing seems to have not been served upon the petitioner and he has not been provided with a fair opportunity of personal hearing. 7 . The Order-in-Original dated 28.1 1.2023, to the aforesaid extent deserves to be set aside and it is ordered accordingly. However, the impugned order is interfered with only on the ground of it being violative of principles of natural justice. The petitioner is directed to enter appearance before the authorities concerned on 07 .O3.2024 for personal hearing. Thereafter, the authorities concerned shall proceed further and pass appropriate fresh order I

I ..-ffi \r\. 4 in accordance with law. It is made clear that there shall be no necessity for issuance of any further notice in this regard to the petitioner by the Department.

8.

The Writ Petition to the aforesaid extent stands allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. //// To, BSR GJP A.V.S.PRASAD ASSTSTANTjEGTSTRAR \,, SECTION OFFICER

1.

The Additional Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad GST Commissionerate GST Bhavan, L B Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500004

2.

The Superintendent of Central Tax Adjudicataon Section, O/o Additional Commissioner of Central Tax Hyderabad GST Commissionerate GST Bhavan, L. B. Stadium Road Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500004

3.

The Principal Commissioner of Central Taxes, Hyderabad GST Commissionerate, GST Bhavan, L B Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500004

4.

The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (State Tax) Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana - 500004

5.

The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi, Union of lndia - 110001

6.

One CC to SRI KARAN TALWAR, Advocate [OPUC]

7.

One CC to SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, Sr. SC FOR CBIC [OPUC] E One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUry SOLICITOR GENERIAL OF lNDlA, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OPUC]

9.

Two CCs to GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 'l0.Two CD Copies *=

HIGH COURT DATED: 0810212024 ORDER WP.No.3353 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS {.klF, S rA I c,.l ( + ic .;) 15 F:t I;l

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.