A.S. Metcorp PVT. LTD vs. The State Of Telangana
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, A.S. N/ETCORP PW, LTD, filed a writ petition seeking to quash a letter dated 07.08.2023 issued by the Deputy Commissioner (ST-II) to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, EOW. This letter requested initiation of prosecution against the petitioner for alleged violations of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and fraudulent transactions related to M/s. KLSR Infratech Limited, a company allegedly established by the petitioner. The petitioner sought to declare the letter illegal, without jurisdiction, and unenforceable, and to set it aside. The petitioner also sought a stay on further proceedings. The respondents, including the State of Telangana and GST authorities, were arrayed. The petitioner's grievance was that the letter was issued without affording an opportunity to explain adverse observations.
Held
The Court held that given the registration of an FIR on 30.06.2022, the freezing of the petitioner's bank account, and the filing of three charge-sheets in December 2023, the discrepancies and defects reflected in the letter dated 07.08.2023, which formed the basis for initiating prosecution, could not be faulted at this juncture. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition for the relief sought. However, the Court made an observation that since proceedings had already been initiated, the respondent authorities were expected to take further action in accordance with law. The Court also noted that if the petitioner were given an opportunity to explain the discrepancies pointed out in the letter dated 07.08.2023, the same might be considered by the concerned authorities. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned letter dated 07.08.2023, requesting prosecution and freezing of bank accounts, issued by the Deputy Commissioner (ST-II) to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, is illegal, without jurisdiction, unenforceable, and contrary to constitutional and GST Act provisions, especially without providing an opportunity to the petitioner to explain adverse observations? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, concerning principles of natural justice and statutory powers under the GST Act). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned letter was issued arbitrarily without granting an opportunity to explain adverse observations, making it illegal, without jurisdiction, and unenforceable. They sought to quash this letter and stay further proceedings. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondent No.6 (Assistant Commissioner of Police) submitted that an FIR was already registered on 30.06.2022, the petitioner's bank account was frozen, and three charge-sheets were filed in December 2023. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 (GST authorities) argued that charge-sheets were filed after the petitioner failed to submit relevant documents upon issuance of summons, and that further proceedings were strictly in accordance with law.
Sections Cited
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the fc llowing: ORDER -r
THD HONOURABLE SRI.TUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND TIIE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRJT PETITION No.1O9 OF 2o24 ORDER:/per Hon'ble Sn.lustice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Dr.S.V. Rama Krishna, Iearned counsel for the petitioner, Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No. 1, Mr.Dominic Fernandes, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, Ms.C.Rohini Smitha, Assistant Covernment Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 5 arrd Mr.Mohd. Abdul Mateen Qureshi, learned Assistant Government Pleader lor Home appearing for respondent No.6. 2. The present Writ Petition has been hled seeking quashment of correspondence dated O7.O8.2O23 made by respondent No.4 to respondent No.6, requesting him to initiate appropriate prosecution against the petitioner for violation of various provisions of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2Ol7 and also for the fraudulent and fictitious transactions reflected in the establishment of M/s.KLSR Infratech Limited, which is a company raised by the petitioner's establishment.
Vide the impugned communication, respondent No.4 had requested respondent No.6 to look into the above aspect and take appropriate steps ,
2
Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 submitted that an FIR was already registered vide Crime No.539 of 2022 on 30.06.2022 on the file of Jeedimefla Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate and respondent No.6 has already ordered for freezing of the bank account of the petitioner. He has further informed that in fact, investigation in the said crime has already been concluded and three separate charge-sheets have already been filed against the petitioner's establishment in the month of December, 2023 before the concerned Court.
At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner sought a direction to respondent No.6 to pennit the petitionrrr to submit a suitable explanation to the so called discrepancies and defects, on the basis of which the respondents have charge sheeted the petitioner.
Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 submits that after issuance of summons, when the petitioner failed to submit any relevant document, the charge-sheet has been filed. Nonetheless, further proceedings have been drau-n strictlv in accordance with law. 7 . Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, particularly the submission of learned counsel appezrring for respondent No.6 that FIR has aiready
3 been lodged and charge-sheet has already been hled, we are of the considered opinion that at this juncture, the discrepancies and defects reflected in the letter of respondent No.4 dated 07.O8.2O23, which are the source for initiation of the prosecution against the petitioner, cannot be found fault with.
Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition so far the relief sought. However, we only make an observation that since the proceedings have already been initiated against the petitioner, the respondent authorities are expected to take further course of action against the petitioner in accordance with law. In case, if the petitioner is given an opportunity to explain to the discrepancies pointed out in the letter of respondent No.4 dated 07.O8.2023, the same may also be considered by the concerned authorities.
With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if arl1, pending, shail stald closed. //' . B.SARASWATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Principal Secretary Department of Revenue Secretariat, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.
The Principal Commissioner Central Tax. Goods and Services Tax Hyderabad, Telangana.
The Commissioner of State Tax Commercial Taxes Department, Goods and Services Tax Nampally Hyderabad-500001 .
The Deputy Commissioner, (ST-ll) Enforcement Wing. Govt. of Telangana O/o Commissioner of Commercial Taxes C.T. Complex, Nampally Hyderabad - 500001 , Telangana I
The Deputy Commissioner, (ST-l) Enforcement Wing 0/0 Commissioner of Commdrcial Taxes Telangana GST Nampally, Hyderabad - 500001
The Asst. Commissioner of Police, EOW, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate Gachibowli, Hyderabad - 500 032
One CC to SRI S.V.RAMA KRISHNA, Advocate [OPUC]
Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUI]
One CC to SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, SC FOR TSCT [OPUC] 10.Two CCs to GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] 1 1. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Tel:rngana at Hyderabad. [OUI-J 12.Two CD Copies PSK. CJI
I , HIGH COURT DATED:04|0112A24 ORDER WP.No.109 of 2.024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. vrE sl Ale: I ( [ 5 FtB ?$2[ r..; i ,:, r'r.rr' ^1(,,\( (, i"?i* al\++
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.