M/S Bhavani Oxides vs. The State Of Telangana
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Bhavani Oxides, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 31.08.2024, which was issued pursuant to a show cause notice dated 29.05.2024. The petitioner contended that this order was passed in violation of law and principles of natural justice. During the hearing, it was submitted by the petitioner and accepted by the respondents that a show cause notice on the same subject matter had been issued earlier by the Central authorities on 29.07.2022. The State authorities subsequently issued their show cause notice on 29.05.2024, leading to the impugned order dated 31.08.2024. The dispute revolves around the validity of the State's action when a prior proceeding was initiated by the Central government.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 31.08.2024, issued by the State authorities, was liable to be set aside. This decision was based on the consensus reached by the learned counsel for both the petitioner and the respondents. The Court acknowledged the submission that the Central authorities had initiated a show cause notice on 29.07.2022, and subsequently, the State authorities issued their show cause notice on 29.05.2024, which led to the impugned order. The Court found that this situation was in the teeth of Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This section stipulates that once a particular government initiates action prior in time, the other government cannot proceed against the assessee on the same subject matter. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. No other issues were expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 31.08.2024, issued by the State authorities, is void ab initio and nugatory for being passed in violation of Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and principles of natural justice, given that the Central authorities had already initiated proceedings on the same subject matter earlier. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary because it violates the principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions, specifically Article 19(1)(g) and 300A. The core of their argument is that the State's action is impermissible as the Central government had already initiated proceedings on the same issue prior to the State's notice, thereby contravening Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. Revenue's arguments: The respondents (State authorities and CBIC) did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's claim regarding the violation of Section 6(2)(b) and principles of natural justice. Instead, they reached a consensus with the petitioner that the impugned order should be set aside.
Sections Cited
Section 6(2)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the fr>llowing: ORDER
-':! a.) THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON,BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No.3 6of 20,24 oRDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog Paul) Sri M.Umashankar' learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri T. Chaitanya Kiran' learned Assistant Government Pleader representing Sri Swaroop Oorilla' learned Special Government pleader for State Tax, for respondent Nos.1 to 3; and sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC' for resPondent No'4'
With the consent' hnallY heard'
The challenge mounted in this writ petition is' to the order dated 31.0g. 2024, whichwas passed in consequence of the show cause notice dated' 29'O5'2024'
During the course of hearing' learned counsel for the parties reached to a consens,s. It is fairly submitted that the rrrst show cause notice was issued by the Central authorities on 29'07 '2022 arrd on the same subject' the show cause notice by the State j , I
2 authorities vlas issued subsequently on 29.O5.2O24 which resulted into lrass;ing of the order dated 31.O8. 2021. In the teeth of Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax ,\ct, 2017, once a particular ,lovernment initiates aI action prior in time, the other Goverr)r lelr. on the same subject matter cannot proceed against the a.s lessee. Thus, it is agreed that the impugned order dated 31.08.21,C24 .ll,ay be set aside.
In vieu, of tlte consensus arrived at by the learner:l counsel for the parties, thr: impugned order dated 31.08.2024 is s<:t aside.
Accordingly. the writ petition is disposed of. No orrler as to costs. Miscella,e ous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. .T. JAYASREE //rRUE coPYtt \ I:=_'U*REGISTRAR z_ To, iJt sEcloNoFFtcER 'l rhe Principar ser:retary, commerciar raxes, se#etariat, Hyderabad, state of Telangana. 2 The commisrsi6'.1",- of the commerciar raxes Department, Terangana State, C.T Comple>:, Nampally, Hyderabad_SO0 001. 3. The Deputy Cornmissioner-2(ST), Enforcement Wing, Office of the CCT, Nampally, Hlrderarbad.
The Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (AE), M.edchal GST commission*rate, IVredchar GST Bhavan, rr-q-6qsB, ir[-Jir."-p*r, Hyderabad-500004
One CC to S lt M.UMASHANKAR, Advocate tOpUCl
One CC to S 3 D()tvilNtC FERNANDES, Sr. dC fOfi CBIC [OplJC] 7' Two ccs tc SpL. Gp FoR srATE TAX, High court'for th6 State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]
Two CD Cop es BSR LS - .:-?--i.-'."s--.r-"a-r& la- () lr
HIGH COURT DATED: 20'10312025 l ORDER WP.No.35496 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS (* a lqlz,s a E 'ic 1|CllE0 Jtt(, a. 17 itfi trs \o t o. t Ot*
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.