M/S. Kr Power Infra (INDIA) Private Limited vs. The Additional Commissioner (Central Tax)

Facts

M/s. KR Power Infra (India) Private Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original dated January 15, 2025, and a Summary of Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated February 6, 2025, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Central Tax), Medchal GST Commissionerate (the 1st Respondent). These orders levied tax and penalty totaling Rs. 5,93,97,436/- for the tax periods 2017-18 to 2022-23 under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner sought to set aside these orders, contending they were unconstitutional, without authority of law, without jurisdiction, barred by limitation, legally unenforceable, and contrary to notifications, circulars, and court judgments. The petitioner also sought to declare recovery proceedings initiated by the 17th Respondent as illegal and to revoke notices issued to banks.

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the contentions raised by the parties. Instead, upon hearing the learned counsel for both sides, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned orders within a period of two weeks. This liberty included the right to file a delay condonation application, which the appellate authority was directed to consider sympathetically, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court also directed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned garnishee notice during this two-week period. The writ petition was disposed of with this liberty, and there was no order as to costs.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Order-in-Original dated January 15, 2025, and the Summary of Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated February 6, 2025, levying tax and penalty under Section 74 of the CGST Act and TSGST Act are unconstitutional, without jurisdiction, barred by limitation, and legally unenforceable? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned orders were passed without appreciating factual circumstances, including voluntary payments made prior to the show-cause notice. They argued the orders were unconstitutional, without authority of law, without jurisdiction, barred by limitation, legally unenforceable, and contrary to various notifications, circulars, and judicial pronouncements, violating Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India. Revenue's arguments: The learned senior standing counsel for the CBIC submitted that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned orders, taking all available grounds in law and on facts.