M/S Telangana Grameena Bank vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

M/s Telangana Grameena Bank (the petitioner) filed a Review Application seeking to recall a judgment order dated 02-01-2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 34273 of 2024. The original writ petition challenged an appeal order dated 27.02.2024. The petitioner had already exhausted the remedy of appeal. The Court noted that the writ petition was decided along with other matters, including Writ Petition No. 1154 of 2024. The petitioner sought to be heard on all issues raised in the original writ petition. The respondents included the Union of India, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, the Joint Commissioner of Central Tax and GST (Appeals-II), the Goods and Service Tax Council, and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC).

Held

The Court decided to modify the order passed in WP.No. 34273 of 2024. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had exhausted the remedy of appeal and that the appeal order dated 27.02.2024 was under challenge. However, in view of a consent order passed in similar matters (specifically referencing an order in WP.No. 27181 of 2024 dated 18.12.2024), the Court deemed it proper to modify its previous order. The petitioner will now be covered by the terms of the aforesaid consent order, which permitted petitioners to deposit 10% of the tax liability and approach the Tribunal within three months of its constitution. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case in the consent order. The Review Application was disposed of with these observations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, having exhausted the remedy of appeal and challenging an appeal order, could maintain a writ petition before this Court, particularly when the Tribunal is yet to be constituted? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to be heard on all issues raised in the writ petition and to recall the previous judgment. They relied on the fact that the original writ petition was decided along with other matters. Revenue/State's contention: The learned senior standing counsel for CBIC raised a formal objection that the petitioner filed the writ petition in December 2024 challenging an appeal order passed on 27.02.2024, implying a delay or improper forum. However, they fairly admitted that a consent order was passed in similar matters.