M/S. Pragati Power Tools vs. The Principal Secretary (Customs And Central Tax)
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, M/s. Pragati Power Tools, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner Appeals (Respondent No. 2). This order rejected the Petitioner's appeal and confirmed a demand of tax amounting to Rs. 6,25,320/-, along with a penalty. The Petitioner contended that the order was passed without properly appreciating statutory provisions, submissions, and binding precedents, rendering it arbitrary and without the authority of law. The Petitioner also argued it violated principles of natural justice. The writ petition sought to quash this order and stay its operation. The tax period in dispute is not explicitly stated, but the impugned order bears the reference '2024-25'.
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition based on a consensus reached between the parties. The Petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the tax liability as assessed by the Assessing Officer within four weeks from the date of the order. The Petitioner was also directed to approach the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) within three months from its constitution/establishment. The Tribunal is to decide the second appeal in accordance with the law. Subject to the 10% deposit, no coercive action is to be taken against the Petitioner until the Tribunal decides the appeal. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. There were no orders as to costs. The issue of whether the impugned order was arbitrary, without authority of law, or violated principles of natural justice was not decided on merits but resolved through the agreed settlement.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner Appeals, rejecting the Petitioner's appeal and confirming the tax demand and penalty, was passed without properly appreciating statutory provisions, submissions, and binding precedents, thereby being arbitrary and without the authority of law, in violation of principles of natural justice? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of relevant GST provisions and principles of natural justice). Petitioner's Arguments: - The impugned order failed to appreciate statutory provisions, the Petitioner's submissions, and prevailing binding precedents. - The order was arbitrary, unjust, and passed without the authority of law. - The order violated the principles of natural justice. Respondents' Arguments: - The judgment records no specific arguments made by the respondents. However, their presence indicates they were defending the impugned order.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 129
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARF^SH KI]MAR SINGH AND TIIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIT]DDIN WRIT PETITION No.22475 of2o25 ORDER: Sri A.M.Kalyan Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner, appeared through video conferencing' Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs' appeared for the resPondents.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties reached to a consensus. It is agreed that this writ petition may be disposed of in terms of order passed in W.P.No.3600 of 2024, dated 22-02.2024 '
Accordingly, as agreed, the Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to deposit 1O96 of the tax liability as assessed by the Assessing Officer and deposit the same with the Department within four weeks from today. The petitioner shall approach the Goods and Services Tax Appeilate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as, \
2 \ "the Tribunal") within three months from the date of its constitution/ establishment. The Tribunal shzrll decide the second appeal in accordance with law. Further, subject to depositing 1O% of the tax liability within the aforesaid time, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner till the decision of the Tribunal in the second appeal. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Hou,ever, there shali be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. i.K.AMMAJI //II DEPU EGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 7 KKS LS 1 #e,iJIffSL:,""::?i3il,l?[B',"#:S:g#:i;:i[i]].:i"",:t,?"::l;:1{.*"",, The Additional Commissio A:1,,"AS,,alh;;Ht*n*i$::l'"h{,:g[],BlJ!."w.,issioneror rhe Assistant "orr,..,.,,.'o'Lm noio-' s';iilt;6ftfi :'H?I::j833i5333'1tn rax;,rvreo1ri1-ctT6illiffijff":B.xrlil"r,"ff l,ltr:f1ff"?i1?igii" tsnctave, OId Bowenpally, secunderabad 50OO.l 1. il!?S1J,,"nl:tTg;,.iLCrTBllI:rGSr-cantonmentRanse, Adityarowersls;i,s;e#lJiL1b3"JX,i!F;:i,":3:|f,"#i:?"rf td;[f l:". One CC to SRt. A lM KALYAN RAM Advocate tOpUCI Pdr"r""? to sRl. DoMINIC FERNANDES (senior standing counset for cBtc) Two CD Copies 2 J 4 t o
HIGH COURT DATED:31t0712025 z/ -.'z'r-l:.\ ,-i::=-\ 1ni ST^','A 1 0 llEP 2025 o^ ORDER WP.No.22475 o12025 DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q /v :+t t' r--C t -q r) 1T(- i,\ _.=: #/a,/z/' ! I II : II i I I I I i I i 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.