G. Sambaiah vs. The State Of Telangana
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, DSV Air and Sea International Private Limited, filed two writ petitions challenging refund rejection orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax. In WP No. 12325 of 2025, the impugned order dated 06.02.2025 pertains to the period October 2022 to December 2022, denying a refund of Rs. 1,91,16,201. In WP No. 12447 of 2025, the impugned order dated 13.03.2025 relates to the period January 2023 to March 2023, denying a refund of Rs. 34,82,711. The petitioner contended that despite filing detailed replies to the show-cause notices, the impugned orders did not reflect any application of mind to the grounds raised in those replies.
Held
The Court held that the impugned refund rejection orders in both writ petitions were to be set aside. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that the orders did not reflect any application of mind to the detailed replies and specific grounds raised by them. The Court agreed with the petitioner's contention that this failure amounted to a violation of natural justice and rendered the orders unsustainable. The ratio decidendi is that tax authorities must demonstrate application of mind to the specific contentions raised by assessees in their replies to show-cause notices before passing adverse orders. The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax on 08.05.2025 at 11:30 AM, without requiring separate notices. The Assistant Commissioner was directed to rehear the petitioner and pass fresh orders in accordance with the law. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the cases.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned refund rejection orders, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, are arbitrary, illegal, non-speaking, bad in law, void-ab-initio, and violative of the principles of natural justice, as contended by the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders failed to consider the detailed replies and specific grounds raised by them in response to the show-cause notices. They asserted that the orders lacked application of mind, rendering them unsustainable in law. The petitioner sought to set aside the orders and direct the respondent to grant the rightful refund along with interest. Respondents' Arguments: The learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax had no objection to the petitioner's prayer for a fresh consideration of their replies.
Sections Cited
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
l THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJoY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA wRIT PETITION Nos.12325 & 12447 of 2O25 COMMON ORJDER (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice [.:ujoA paul): Sri Prasad Paranjape, learned counst.l reprcisents Sri A.V.A. Si',,a Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Su,aroolt Oorilla, learned Special Governmen t pleader for State Tax, lor the respondents.
Regzu-d being had to the similitude of t he questions involved, as a.greed, these matters are finally heard
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in both the cases, raised singular submission. He submits that the p,rtitioner filed detailecl replir:s to the impugned show cause notices in both the matters and r-ook specific grounds in the replies fil,:d before the t respondent l\o.
However, the refund rejection orders, I impugned herein, do not reflect aly application of mind on the replies and specific stands taken therein by the petitioner. Thus, the impugnei orders in both the cases may be sr:t aside and respondent No.2 may be directed. to consider the replies and pass fresh or,lers in accordance with 1a,*.. I I l I l I l I
Learned counsel for ttri other side has no objection to this innocuous prayer.
Accordingly, both the impugned refund rejection orders dated 06.02.2025 and 13.03.2025 a_re set aside. The petitioner shall now appear before respondent No.2 on 0g.05.2025 at l1:3O A.M., for which, no separate notices will be required to be issued to the petitioner. On such appearance, respondent No.2 shall rehear the petitioner ald pass fresh orders in accordalce with 1aw.
With aforesaid and without expressrng any opinion on merits of the cases, these Writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed //// T.CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFF]CER R nue (CT-ll) Department, To, 1 The Principal Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.
The Assistant Commission-er of State Tax, Khairatabad - Somajiguda-2, Circle, 8th floor, B-Block, Mayur, Complex,'Abids, Hyderabad - 6O'b OOii Telangana
The Commissioner of State Tax, Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad - 5OO 001, Telangana
DSV Air and Sea Pvt. Ltd., (previously known as Agility Logistics private Limite.d) H. No. 6-3-.1090447,'becond-Fioor, IMS Hou;e, haj drrivin noii, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500082
One CC to SRI A.V.A.SIVA KARTTKEYA, Advocare tOpUCI
Two CCs to SPL GP FOR STATE TAX, High Court for the State of Tetangana at Hyderabad [OUT]
Two CD Copies BSR
HIGH COURT DATED: 2510412025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.12325 and 12447 of 2025 WITHOUT COSTS URGENT 1Hc S f4) c -)i{ +) ) ,) \...'rl PZo .}. [2 r,rAY zffi !;st,r-,-''- ))' - i:-1--.;- ---'-' s DISPOSING OF BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS, Lo ).4
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.