M/S. Surekha Medical Agencies vs. The Appellant Joint Commissioner
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition based on a consensus reached between the parties. The petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the tax liability, as assessed by the Assessing Officer, within four weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner was also directed to approach the Tribunal within three months from its constitution or establishment. The Tribunal is to decide the second appeal in accordance with the law. Crucially, no coercive action is to be taken against the petitioner for recovery of the tax liability until the Tribunal decides the second appeal, provided the 10% deposit is made within the stipulated time. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. No costs were awarded.
Facts
M/s. Surekha Medical Agencies, a partnership firm, filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court challenging an order passed by the Appellate Joint Commissioner (1st Respondent) on 21.09.2024, which dismissed their appeal. This order confirmed the decision of the Assistant Commissioner (ST) (2nd Respondent) dated 31.12.2023. The petitioner also challenged the validity of G.o.Ms.No. 118 dated 25.08.2023, issued by the Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT) Department (3rd Respondent). The tax period under dispute is 2017-18. The petitioner sought to set aside the orders and stay further recovery proceedings.
Key Issues
1. Whether the action of the 1st and 2nd Respondents in passing the impugned orders is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, unfair, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 265 of the Constitution of India, as well as the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the GST Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the orders passed by the revenue authorities were illegal and contrary to the provisions of the GST Act, 2017. They also argued that the action was violative of constitutional provisions and principles of natural justice. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, their presence as respondents indicates their defense of the impugned orders.
Sections Cited
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
J I Between: arbitrary, unjust, improper' unfair, violative of article 1a,19(1)(g)' 21 a34111 I\/ahender ReddY D.No. ...PETITIONER violative of principles of natural justice, and 265 of the constitution of lndia and HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITI ON NO:29799 OF 2O24 lvl/s. Surekha tr4edical Agencies, Partner --Sri Badal 4-3-7211t1, Dwaraka Nagar Adilabad Dist, Telangana AND 1 The Aooellant Joint Commissioner, Gandhi Bhavan, CT Buiiding Opp' uampbity, Hyderabad, Telangana State z it" A".i.taircommiisionJr"(ST), Adilabad Division,Ad itabad, N/edichal Commissioerate, Telangana State. a Strie "ir"runglnu Re[ ny its Principal Secretary' Revenue (CT) Department SecretariatBuilding.Saifabad,Hyderabad lelangana ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCoUrtmaybe pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of wr
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.