M/S.Am.J. And Company vs. The State Of Telangana
Original PDF →Facts
M/s. AM.J. & Company (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging the action of the Assistant Commissioner (ST) (the respondent) in blocking its Electronic Credit Ledger on May 22, 2025, for an amount of Rs. 12,16,36,159/-. The petitioner contended that this action was taken without issuing any notice, was illegal, perverse, unsustainable in law, and violated the principles of natural justice, citing a previous judgment of the High Court. The petitioner sought to set aside the proceedings and direct the unblocking of its Electronic Credit Ledger. The respondent was asked to seek instructions. Subsequently, the respondent informed the court that the Electronic Credit Ledger had been unblocked on September 10, 2025. The petitioner did not dispute this but submitted that it was being made to pay a penalty.
Held
The Court noted that the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger was blocked on May 22, 2025, under Rule 86-A of the TGST Rules, 2017, without notice, which the petitioner challenged as illegal. The respondent, on instructions, informed the Court that the Electronic Credit Ledger had been unblocked on September 10, 2025. The petitioner's counsel did not dispute this fact. However, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner was being made to pay a penalty. The Court observed that any order imposing a penalty was not under challenge in the present writ petition. The Court stated that the petitioner might have a remedy before the appropriate forum if any proceedings have been conducted concerning charges under the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Since the Electronic Credit Ledger had been unblocked, the Court found that nothing further survived for decision in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of.
Key Issues
1. Whether the action of the respondent in blocking the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger under Rule 86-A of the TGST Rules, 2017, without issuing any notice, is illegal, perverse, unsustainable in law, and contrary to the principles of natural justice, as contended by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief regarding the penalty being imposed, as submitted by the petitioner's counsel? Contentions of the Petitioner: The petitioner argued that the blocking of its Electronic Credit Ledger by the respondent on May 22, 2025, under Rule 86-A of the TGST Rules, 2017, was illegal and passed without any notice, violating principles of natural justice. They relied on the High Court's judgment in M/s. Bhavani Oxides and Others Vs. State of Telangana and Others. The petitioner sought to have the proceedings set aside and the ledger unblocked. Contentions of the Respondent: The learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that the Electronic Credit Ledger of the petitioner had been unblocked on September 10, 2025.
Sections Cited
Rule 86-A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER o I
THE HON'BLE THE CHIDF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KTJMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLD SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHII.IDDIN \trRIT PETITION No.l9lOL of 2O25 ORDER: Heard Mr. B. KrisLrna Reddv, iearned connsel Ibr thc petitioner and Mr. K.Sai Akarsh, lea.r-ned Assistalnt Govcrnment Pleader representing Mr. Swaroop Oorilla. Iearrned Spccial Government Pleader fbr State Ta-x appears for the responclerrts
Petitioner's Electronic Credit t edger ',vas blockecl on 22.05.2025 under Rule 86,.4' of the Tclalgana Goocls and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which according to it $,.rs illegal ancl without any notice
I-earned Assistant Government Plcacler lor the respondents was asked to.seek instructions.
Today when the matter has been taken up, learnecl Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. on instructions, subrnits that the Elecfonic Creclit l-edger of the petitioner has been unblocked on O LO9.2O25. .--I 1 5. [rarned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the Electroni(: Credit Ledger has been unblocked. However. he submil.s tlrat lhe petitioner is being made to pay penalty.
Fror rr ir Jrenrsal of the lwit pctition. it appea-rs that alrr such ordcr inposing penalty is not under challenge. Petitioner may havc a remedy belore the appropriate forum, if any proceeclir-rgs have been conducted in respect ol any charges under the Tclangana Goods and Services Tax Act. 2017 by the respondent airthorities. However. so far as this matter is concer:rerl. sincc the Electronic Credit Ledger has been unblocked. rolhing survives to be decided. 7. r\ccordingly. the instant Writ Petifion is disposecl of Ilorvever-, therc shall be no order as to costs. Miscellrneous applications closed. pending, if any, shall stancl . JI\WAHAR REDDY I,\NT REGISTRAR ,// To. 1 The Principal Secrelgry, Revenue (CT) Departme\t, Telangana, State rrf Telangana. \ E:CTION OFFICER retariat, Hyderabad, o M
The Assistant Conrmissioner (ST), tr/ehdipatnam-2 Circle, Charminar Division, Hyderabad, Telan,;ana.
One CC to SRI B.I(RISHNA REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI
Two CCs to SPI- GP FOR STATE TAX, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]
Two CD Copies BSR BS
HIGH COURT DATED: 16109t2'C25 ORDER o o k 1HE, ST4 14, 01 l'|1v 2925 Sri.aTCHf_O (, i. C) oo WP.No.19101 o1i 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSIS t I ,1 t,' \t )... \ 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.