M/S. Venkateswara Granites vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax And GST
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Venkateswara Granites, is challenging an order-in-appeal dated January 31, 2025, passed by the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Central Tax and GST Appeals-II), which rejected their appeal. This appeal was against an order-in-original dated January 31, 2022, passed by the 2nd respondent (Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax, Warangal GST Division) for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner had previously filed a writ petition (W.P.No.9021 of 2022) challenging the order-in-original, which was withdrawn on December 24, 2024. Upon withdrawal, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent, which was dismissed solely on the grounds of delay. The petitioner sought to set aside the appellate order and have the appeal heard on merits, or alternatively, to direct the appellate authority to condone the delay and dispose of the appeal.
Held
The Court found substance in the petitioner's argument. It acknowledged that the petitioner had challenged the order-in-original within the statutory limitation period by filing W.P.No.9021 of 2022, which remained pending until its withdrawal. In light of these peculiar facts, the Court directed the appellate authority to ignore the period during which the petitioner's earlier writ petition was pending before the High Court. Consequently, the impugned appellate order dated January 31, 2025, was set aside. The appellate authority was directed to decide the petitioner's appeal in accordance with the law, explicitly stating that the appeal shall not be dismissed on the ground of delay. The petitioner undertook to appear before the appellate authority on April 16, 2025, at 11:30 am, and no further notice would be issued. The writ petition was disposed of without expressing any view on the merits of the case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the present writ petition is maintainable despite the previous writ petition being withdrawn unconditionally, considering the petitioner sought withdrawal with liberty and relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation v. Anil Garg? (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: - The writ petition is maintainable as the previous withdrawal was intended to be with liberty, citing the Supreme Court in Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation v. Anil Garg. - The time spent pursuing the earlier writ petition before this Court should be considered as condonable/ignorable for the purpose of appeal delay. - The appellate authority should be directed to hear the appeal on merits, considering the peculiar facts and the time consumed before this Court. Respondents' Arguments: - The respondents raised a formal objection.
Sections Cited
Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
7 THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUI{A YARA IIIRIT PETITION No.6773 of 2o25 ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog Paul) Sri Singam Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, for the respondents.
This is the second visit of the petitioner to this Court. Earlier, the petitioner filed W.P.No.9021 of 2022, which was withdrawn by it on 24.L2.2O24. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although in the aforesaid order dated 24.12.2024 it was mentioned that the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn unconditionally, it is required to be seen that the petitioner filed a letter dated 21.12.2024 to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty. Thus, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation v. Anil Gargt, this writ petition is, indeed, maintainable, despite the fact that the earlier writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn unconditionally. '(2017) 14 scc 634
2 .- \
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitr; that the impugned ordr:r-in-original dated 31.O1.2022 was promptly challenged by the petitioner in the previous round of L tigation i.e., W.P.No.902ti of 2022, which remained pending with al interim protection till 2zr.12.2024 when it was permitted to be withdrawn. The petitioner d iligently assailed the order-in-original before this Court and efter withdrawal, filed al appeal which .:ame to be dismissed soleI.y on the ground of delay. In the pecuiiar facts of this case an d L y considering the fact that the time consumed before this Cour_ is condonable/ignorable, the appellale authoritv may be directed -o hear the matter on merits. 5 Learnecl Senior Standing Counsel for the respondr:nts raised formal objer:tion
We find substance in the argument of the learn,::d counsel for the petitioner.. 7 In the peculiar lacts of this case, admittedly, the petitioner cha-llenged the crder-in-original within the period of statutory limitation in W.p. \o.902 1 of 2022, which remained pencting till its withdrawal f*F--- x
J
Thus, in the fitness of things, we deem it proper to direct the appellate authority to ignore that period when the petitioner's earlier writ petition remained pending before this Court' g. Resultantly, the impugned appellate order dated 3l'Ol'2025 is set aside. The appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner in accordance with law' However' the appeal shall not be dismissed on the ground of delay' The petitioner undertakes to appea'r before the appellate authority on 16.04.2025 at 11:30 am and no further notice for this purpose shall be issued to the petitioner. The appellate authority shall proceed in accordance with law from that stage'
The writ Petition
accordinglY disPosed of without 1S expressing any view on merits' No order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any' shall stand closed' //// V.KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER / To 6 PSK. LS
The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax and GST, Circle-lV, Hy^d^erabad ' nuAit-tt Gommissionerate, 2-9-26817, Vikasnagar, Hanamkonda-506001, Telangana. r irl". oLoutv Commissioner of Central Taxe, Warangal GST Division, 2'7 -391 ' - sri Sai irlivis, Excise Colony, Hanamkonda-506001 , Telangan?, ^ . .. s. ihe Commissioner (ln-situ)bf Central Tax an-d GST (Appeals-ll)' O/o the "' Commissioner of Cdstoms'and Central Tax, Appeals-ll' {yder.alad. Commissionerate, 7th Floor, GST Bhavan, L.B. Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hvderabad - 500 004, Telangana. 4. o;a cc to sRl SINGAM SRI-NIVASA RAO, Advocate IoPUC] S. One CC to SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES' senior standing counsel tor Ctslu toPUCI Two CD Copies p,r
HIGH COURT DATED:0210412025 ORDER WP.No.6773 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS P+ s E R P \.:. - )t,. \ . ,+ ,\\ A 2 , (l \'l tsfi i) ./ + \ lI \l' ,) O 3 i) liJ
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.