M/S. Vallabhaneni Constructions PVT. LTD vs. The Union Of INDIA
Held
The Court held that the issue in these Writ Petitions was no longer res integra, in light of the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in W.P. No.44517 of 2018 & batch, dated 22.12.2021. The respondents, represented by the Special Standing Counsel, did not dispute this submission. Consequently, the Court allowed these Writ Petitions in terms of the order passed in W.P. No.44517 of 2018 & batch, dated 22.12.2021. The respondents were directed to follow the directions contained in the said prior order. The ratio decidendi is that where a High Court has already decided a legal issue in a batch of cases, subsequent similar petitions should be allowed in terms of that precedent, provided the revenue does not dispute its applicability. The operative direction was to allow the petitions and follow the directions of the earlier judgment.
Facts
These batch of Writ Petitions (Nos. 18703, 19213, 19547, 19554, 22233, 22473 and 25237 of 2019) were filed before the High Court of Telangana. The core issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioners challenged orders or actions by the revenue authorities concerning this interpretation. The learned counsel for the parties submitted that the issue was no longer res integra, referencing a prior decision by a Division Bench of the same High Court in W.P. No.44517 of 2018 & batch, dated 22.12.2021. The Special Standing Counsel for the respondents did not dispute this submission.
Key Issues
1. Whether the interpretation of Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as decided in W.P. No.44517 of 2018 & batch, dated 22.12.2021, is applicable to the present batch of Writ Petitions? The petitioner's contention was that the issue raised in these petitions was squarely covered by the Division Bench's earlier judgment. They argued that the principles laid down in that judgment should be applied to their cases. The revenue, through the Special Standing Counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's submission regarding the applicability of the prior judgment. Therefore, the revenue did not present any opposing arguments on the merits of the interpretation of Section 50.
Sections Cited
Section 50
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION Nos.18703, 19213, 19547, 19554, 22233, 22473 AND 25237 OF 2019
COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T. Vinod Kumar)
The issue in these batch of Writ Petitions relate to interpretation of provisions of Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (short ‘the CGST Act’).
When these matters are listed before this Court today, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties submits that the issue in these Writ Petitions is no longer res integra in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.44517 of 2018 & batch dated 22.12.2021. 3. Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned Special Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents do not dispute the above said submission.
In view of the same, and for the reasons alike, these Writ Petitions are allowed in terms of the order in W.P. No.44517 of 2018 & batch dated 22.12.2021, and respondents shall follow the directions contained in the said order. No costs.
2
Registry is directed to append a copy of the order passed in W.P. No.44517 of 2018 & batch dated 2
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.