Mr. V.Ravinder Rao vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax
Held
The learned counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that the impugned summons dated March 16, 2021, had been withdrawn by the first respondent. Consequently, the dispute in the writ petition no longer survived for adjudication. The Court, recording this submission, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. As a sequel, any pending miscellaneous petitions were also ordered to be closed. No costs were awarded.
Facts
The petitioner, Mr. V. Ravinder Rao, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Telangana challenging a summons dated March 16, 2021, issued by the Superintendent of Central Tax. The summons directed the petitioner to appear before the respondent in connection with OC No. 57/2021. The petitioner contended that the summons was bad in law, arbitrary, violative of natural justice, without jurisdiction, barred by limitation, and in direct violation of previous interim orders of the High Court. The petitioner also asserted that he was not liable for service tax due to the reverse charge mechanism. The summons was issued under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to service tax matters by Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Section 174(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Key Issues
1. Whether the summons dated March 16, 2021, issued by the Superintendent of Central Tax to the petitioner is legally sustainable, considering the petitioner's assertion of non-liability for service tax under the reverse charge mechanism. 2. Whether the said summons is arbitrary, mechanical, violative of principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction, and barred by limitation. 3. Whether the summons is in direct violation of interim orders previously passed by this Hon'ble Court. The petitioner argued that the summons was bad in law, arbitrary, mechanical, violative of principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction, barred by limitation, and in direct violation of interim orders passed by the High Court. The petitioner also contended that he was not liable for service tax due to the reverse charge mechanism. The respondents' arguments are not recorded in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 14, Section 83, Section 174(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. S, RAMACHANORA RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO: 7111 0F 2021 Between: lVr. V.Ravinder Rao. S/o. Sri R V.Kishan Rao, Aged 63 years. Rlo ,B_2_31llM, Road No. 14,Banjara xiris,-nvoeiatai:5doo"ifilirrdr;;. " ". ;;il.; AND 1 2 ffg^S-uOerintendent of Centrat Tax, punjagutta GST R ii[:Elnlrff H];xx$*;srum::ai,r'#"laiasidt{[:T];!li[tyl I["i'i,,TJ:i:tH:ltil,il];[yjil1TliX j,j;]ff n2;:f ";;te,3-4-118l1 The Principal Commissione liffi t:fffi*:'isi"dl?;r,:i:J:3;3111'fi t5slS::;'&,itffi :11;,.":,.J, Ihe Principal C6mmissione Srflfi hfi;,,x,:,33?"J^il'":i:J%eai*"fi :5s1,=::i:?[l8f; lig;s"lt1,j] !fl-ifi.ffiffi i:"":,*ffi 3itl$,r,,j,iil;fl{?ff ij,{l::1fi:.:il} 3 4 5 o Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia ..,RESPONDENTS praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be preased to issue a writ' order or Direction one in the nature of Mandamus decraring the summons dated 16103/202 1 (received on 1910312021), issued by the l st
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.