M/S. Kanaka Durga Enterprises vs. The State Of Telangana

Held

The Court noted that both learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents fairly submitted that the impugned order is appealable. The petitioner expressed readiness to avail the remedy of appeal but sought protection against the hurdle of limitation. The revenue did not oppose this prayer. Consequently, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition by reserving liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal within fifteen days from the date of the order. The Court directed that in the event of an appeal being filed within the stipulated period, the appellate authority shall consider and decide the appeal on its merits and shall not dismiss it on the ground of delay. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. No costs were awarded. The interlocutory applications, if any pending, were also closed.

Facts

The petitioner, Kanaka Durga Enterprises, represented by its proprietress, challenged proceedings issued by the Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes) on August 29, 2024, and an attachment order dated September 30, 2024. The impugned orders pertained to an amount of Rs. 79,21,586, including penalty, for the assessment year 2019-20 (3119-4120). The petitioner contended that the demand and assessment were not legal, not properly and timely assessed, and were hit by limitation as per the norms of the GST Act, 2017. The petitioner sought to set aside these orders and suspend their operation. The petitioner also filed an interlocutory application seeking a direction to the respondents not to take coercive action and to consider their representation dated August 17, 2024, for claiming Input Tax Credit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned proceedings issued by the Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes) dated August 29, 2024, and the attachment order dated September 30, 2024, are illegal, arbitrary, improper, and unjust, particularly concerning the assessment and demand for the period 2019-20, and if they are hit by the limitation prescribed under the GST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment and demand were not legally valid, were not properly and timely assessed, and were barred by limitation under the GST Act, 2017. They sought to set aside these orders and prevent coercive action. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records that the revenue did not oppose the petitioner's prayer for availing the appellate remedy and did not oppose the innocuous prayer made by the petitioner.