M/S. Vijay Nirman Company Private Limited vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax-Vi
Original PDF →Facts
M/s. Vijay Nirman Company Private Limited (the petitioner) filed a review petition seeking to recall a judgment and order dated January 2, 2025, passed in Writ Petition No. 33710 of 2024. The petitioner had challenged the constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondents included the Deputy Commissioners of State Tax and the Union of India and the State of Telangana. The parties reached a consensus during the hearing that the constitutional aspect of Section 16(2)(c) could not be examined by the appellate authority. Consequently, the writ petition was agreed to be restored to its original number, with the understanding that relief already decided in WP.No.1154 of 2024 and batch would not be reopened.
Held
The Court held that, by consensus of the parties, the Writ Petition No. 33710 of 2024 should be restored to its original number. The order under review was recalled. The Court further clarified that the writ petitioner would not be permitted to challenge the extension notifications, which had already been upheld in WP.No.1154 of 2024 and batch. This decision was based on the agreement between the petitioner and the respondents that the constitutional aspect of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, was a matter for the High Court's examination and not the appellate authority. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree on the forum for examining a constitutional challenge and the scope of subsequent proceedings, the High Court can facilitate such examination by restoring the writ petition, while respecting prior pronouncements on related matters.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can examine the constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, when such a challenge cannot be undertaken by the appellate authority? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, was a matter that could only be examined by the High Court and not by the appellate authority. Revenue/State's Contention: The respondents, represented by the State Tax authorities and the Union of India, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's contention regarding the High Court's jurisdiction on constitutional matters. However, they agreed to the consensus that the writ petition could be restored to its original number, subject to certain conditions.
Sections Cited
Section 16(2)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Court made the following: ORDER "Sri Venkata Prasad, learned counsel learned counsel for the petitioner. representing lSri Md.Shabaz, Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned respondent-State Tax. Special Governmenl pleader for EPUTY REGISTRAR //// To, SECTION OFFICER
The Deputy Cornmissioner of State Tax-Vl , Enfo Wing- ll, Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,cT Buildi ng, Opp. Gandhi Bhavan, Nampall y, Hyd e.abad, Telangana - 500 001 .
The DePUty C)onrmissioner of State Tax, punjagutta STU-2 Cirr:le, Punjagufta Division, Mayur KushaI Complex, Abids. Hyderabad, Telangan;,r - 500 001
The Secretary, The D ment of Revenue, Ministry of Financ e, The Union epart New of lndia, North Block Delhi The Principal Secretary to Government Revenue Department (()ommercial Tax), State of Tela ngana, Hyderabad , Telangana The Section Officer DB Section), High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad With the consent finally heard. During the course of hearing, learned counset for the parties, fairly submitted that in the writ petition, the petitioner has called in'question the constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c) of the central Goods and Services Tax Act,2017 and the said aspect cannot be examined by the appe[ate authority. Thus, the writ Petition can be restored to its originil number However, ii is -asj'eed that, that portion of the rerief, which has llready been decided in ihe WP.No.1154 of 2024 and batch cannot be reopened. t ln view of this consensus arrived at, wp.No.337 10 or 2024 is restored to its originat number. The order under review is recafled. However, it witi noi be open to the writ petitioner to assair the extension notifications, which were upheld in WP.No.1154 ot 2024 and batch. Accordingly, the Review Application is disposed of. Registry shall keep a copy of this order in the original Writ petition.,, .K.SREERAMA MURTHY -i[:* 4 5 ( 9. 9n" CC to SRt tUD. SHABAZ, Advocate tOpUCI
Two CCs to SRt SWARO.^9P_OORLIA, Spr_.-e-F for State Tax, High Court for _ the State of Telangana. [OUT] :Et!!!fi i"Tlft?:[Ty:E]#Hyit,loo""B[yol"ul"J,JrGe',era,o,ndia),
Two CD Copies BN LS
HIGH COURT DATED:2810312025 ORDER l.A. No.3 of 2025 IN WP.No.33710 of 2024 0 2 i'i"r i{ffi zoI ( I ^\s q) t-> ,,t. 4r i ./),: (: nrJr- \1' -o DISPOSING OF THE REVIEW APPLICATION ) \> tL
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.