M/S. Sigma Agri Products vs. Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)

Original PDF →
WP/9594/2025HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01018234202530 April 2025Bench: SUJOY PAUL,RENUKA YARA6 pages
For Respondent: __

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
H|GH couRr '?+ I1"3Ii;i3:l:::-"^^ tsPt"ii o'iiginal Jurisdiction) *"$.3'+'".JSF--JR''J'J,[J'S'?'''f *'' PRESENT ON NO: 13446I ...RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE THE ACTIN.G^CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL THE HONOURAEUE S#SUSTICE RENUKA YARA 959 40F 025 2 wRlTPETITI '"*""H1'r:lnJfl ,ffi '13'?s;31'",fr 'i8.iifl :{,,SB[[J'H*io?5?!ii.fli[J"[l#3 Hagraharam guntur ' Alrurrra I r"'-- ...,ET.TIONER AND ,A??il1io"fl ,TEl?.;B"F:J:l?'F,:31},"%?,1"3t3'l'^fl ::i?i,'"ff S?:l3J*'on ,ilffi't*J'J,"'.T[ S?,Y?',33?i'il$i$i;ff S:flffi :?';b1itl]6orr'*,:'o*" .B,fl?":,Ie, jilSiB;ISBI?jifi 'r"olPJJ:"ot..'"ciparsecretarytoRevenue - Uil:E:l'r:"';:"rt"rl:t;*'eii"J t?r'.t-f 27' RAsraharam Koneru Road 5. General Manager, State Bank of lndia Head Office at Bank Street Near Abids Koti-500095 Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in tn" "i['* fi'"0 tntt"*tn' the Hiqh Court may be pleased to issue Writ, order "' o''Jii"i'ioie particularlv one In the nature of Writ of iii"nJJi,,.,J"r,,,r-'trryj!;;ffi ill*rf '::l;i;;;lf [].i{'i$ s856 1 M 1 ZCIDRC-o7/ARREARS t 2024 t zu,zc -- -"1 l:: " ::; ;-.;" "a ino to attach resoondent authority "oot."!l"o"io-in-" stn i"t-ponoent Banker demanding to atta the bank account r.ro.oooot-diz+"rligiits- s,tx".Bank of rndia sME Kothapet ' Branch Guntur oistrict nno"nia'-pr"o"rn uno pay tax liability of Rs 84,78,886/- is illegal, arbitrary anO witnoui ariy l"itaittion and set aside and quash the same IA NO:1 OF 2025 *l*$*u,ilffiffi*fi':q,atry Counset for the petitione 3#iffJ*::?: H:,;:":I::,: llj:;l_"." ooR,, L,.\ s pecia, Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4&5: __

The Court made the fr>ltowing: ORDER

ACTING CI{IEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL TIIE I{ONOUBABLE THE THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUI{AYARA AND T1ON .9594 2JJ2s No of T PETI oRDER: (per HorlbLe Tle Acting Chie!'Justicel Pilli Nagaraj ' learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State ' Sri SrvarooP Tax, for resPondents

2.

With the consent finallY heard'

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is challenging the order dated 15'02'2025 issuerl under Section 79 (1) (c) of the Goods and Service Tax Act' 2O17 ('GST Act')' He fairly submitted that the petitioner is alrear'ly served with the assessment order, which u'il1 be challenged in separate appropriate procee<lings' By taking this. Court to the Section 79 (1) (c) of the GST Act and judgment of Supreme Court in M/s' Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himaehal Pradesht, it is submitted that the impugned action is high handed and bad in law.

4.

Sri Swaroop Oorilla, leameC Specizrl Government pieader for State Tax, supported the impugned orcier and submitted that the \ I' ll I Civil Appeal No. I I 5-s o1202 l. dared 20.01 201i

tmPugnecl or(1,3r dated 15.o2.2o25 assessment orri,:r, r.r,hiCh is filed along u,ith his col,11 r er- before this count:r ancl rh r: docrrments Oorilla, sLlbr,,,is that the He can assa,l ls iner.itabl . out,lome of Court. Br lakilrg this Court to the ann exed 5 there "r.ith, Sri Swaroop petrtioner received notice and aft lhe assessmcnt {)rder is passed. order in approp riate proceedings er follou.ing drte pr,rccss ,.rt iau,,, Impugned order irL the satd proceedings. Learned corr nsel for the petitioner althougir pla,:er I , rejiance on the rejoincler could not point out any averm(,r-,r. from the re.;oinder to refutt: that notice of assessment or assessrn --nt order could not be serve rl on him.

6.

As noticr:d atrove, learned counsel for thc p,rtitior,'el hrrnself Stated that he is a,r are of the assessment order an:l in itplrroprtate fresh proceedings, the sarne wili be challengeci

7.

In our opitr.on, in that proceedings he can ile stay application and place reliance on the -iudgment of Surlt er'-ir: Clourt in M/s. Radha Krishan Industries (supra) for grat-rt of s'iay ' In absence of chalieage to the basic assessment orcier' rvt e'rr: not inclined to interfe -': u'ith the impugned orcler clateri l'' 'i)2 )'o25- Irrr a ssessment and can alsc as k I, rr. s [ay of D/.B.G,VYJAYANTHI TANT REGISTRAR /T" SECTION OFFICER

1.

Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), MaredP ally Ctn e, Begumpet Division officeatDNo 63789 Pavani Prestige 6th Floor AmeerPet, Hyderabad - 5000'16 stige 6th Floor Amee ricle rpet , Beg , Hyderabad umPet Division Office at D No - 500016

2.

Commercial Tax Officer' MaredPallY Ci 63789 Pavani Pre

3.

State Comm of Telanga ercial Tax na, ReP Secreta rese riat H nted bY its PrinciPal Secretary to Revenue yderabad

4.

Man State Bank of lndia Door No 24-9-27 'R Agraharam Koneru Road opp Baba Temple Guntur, AP.522003 J B. Accordingly, the Writ Petitron is disposed of by reservrng liberty to the petitioner to challenge the assessment order and ask for stay of the impugned order in the said appropriate proceedings. No costs. pending, shall stand closed Miscellaneons applications, if any S S To, ager, . Sai Office at Bank Street Near Abids 5.General Manager' State Bank of lndia Head Koti-500095

6.

One CC to SRl. PILLI NAGARAJ Advocate IOPUCI State of Telangana at 7. lwo t,Csto GP for STATE TAX' High Court for the Hyderabad. [OUTI L Two CD CoPies KKS LS c\,(v

HIGH COUR]' DATED:30 tO4t2OZs ORDER WP.No.9594 of 2O2S DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS C}LL (isr' 7n\ ir 't{l,Y a o (.) li Ter€ ?Atlt/ \ ,io.1.,.FrI gr"!05l), \

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.