M/S. Bnr Sand Manufacturing Unit vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. BNR Sand Manufacturing Unit, represented by its Managing Partner B. Nanda Reddy, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 29.12.2023 and Form GST DRC-07 dated 30.12.2023, passed by the Superintendent of Central Tax. These orders levied interest for the period July 2017 to March 2018 under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Telangana State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the levy of interest was illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and contrary to statutory provisions and judicial precedents, specifically referencing the case of India Cements Ltd. The petitioner sought to set aside the impugned order and declare that they are not liable to pay interest on royalty paid to the Government. An interim order was also sought to stay the recovery of the demand.
Held
The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition. No costs were awarded. The interlocutory applications, if any pending, were also closed. The specific reasons for withdrawal are mentioned in a letter dated 17.03.2025, which is not detailed in the provided order. Therefore, the Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the issues raised by the petitioner regarding the legality and jurisdiction of the interest levy.
Key Issues
1. Whether the levy of interest for the period July 2017 to March 2018 under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Telangana State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, contrary to statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order levying interest was illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and contrary to the provisions of the GST Acts. They also contended that the levy was made without following the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cements Ltd. (1990(1) SCC 12), and consequently, they are not liable to pay interest on royalty paid to the Government. Respondents' arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (The Superintendent of Central Tax and the Union of India).
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 2
w THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No.5137 of 2o24 ORDER (Per the Hon'ble the Acting ChieJ Justice Sujog Paul): Sri P.N. Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Smt. B. Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, for respondent No.l and Sri B. Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned I Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.2. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the letter dated 17.O3.2O25, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file alresh. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. .K.A MAJt DEPUTY REGI TRAR //// SECTION OFFICER
One CCto SRl. P N SUNIL KUMAR REDDYAdvocate [OPUC] 2.oneCCtoSmt.BoKARoSAPNAREDDY(SENloRScFoRcBlC)[oPUC]
One CC to Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar' Deputy Solicitor General of lndia [OPUC]
Two CD CoPies To, KKS LS l*
HIGH COURT DATED:2410312025 ORDER WP.No.5137 of 2024 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS (r r.f' "::iE S fAi .::- \ t s :t 1:+ .+ ('j'! ?5 nrt 2g .{rr., r HEO * >\ Io 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.