M/S Apitco Limited vs. Union Of INDIA
Held
The Court did not decide the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to withdraw the Writ Petition. The Court granted the liberty as sought by the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn. As a sequel, any pending miscellaneous petitions were also closed. The Court did not make any findings on the legality or otherwise of the Order-in-Original or the constitutional validity of any provisions. The issue of whether the order was contrary to the Finance Act, 2014, or CESTAT orders, and the alleged violations of Articles 265, 14, and 300A of the Constitution of India, were expressly left undecided due to the withdrawal of the petition.
Facts
M/s APITCO Limited (the Petitioner) filed a writ petition before the High Court for the State of Telangana challenging an Order-in-Original No.HYD-EXCU5-002-COM-26-20-21 dated August 21, 2020, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad GST Commissionerate (Respondent No.2). The Petitioner sought to quash this order, alleging it was illegal, arbitrary, unlawful, and contrary to specific provisions of the Finance Act, 2014, and certain final orders of the CESTAT. The Petitioner also sought a stay on further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order. The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Order-in-Original No.HYD-EXCU5-002-COM-26-20-21 dated August 21, 2020, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad GST Commissionerate, is illegal, arbitrary, unlawful, and contrary to the provisions of the Finance Act, 2014, and CESTAT final orders, thereby violating Articles 265, 14, and 300A of the Constitution of India? The Petitioner argued that the impugned order was contrary to the Finance Act, 2014, and relied on CESTAT final orders (Nos.111-1115/2010). The Petitioner also contended that the order violated constitutional provisions, specifically Articles 265, 14, and 300A. The Revenue (Respondents No.1 and 2) did not record any specific arguments in the judgment provided.
Sections Cited
Section 86
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD isPecial Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T' AMARNATH GOUD WRIT PETITION NO: 2093 oF 2020 3 Between: IVl/s APITCO Limited, Sth Floor, Parishrama Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 500004, nep nV its Managing Director, Sri K.V.L Nrasimham ...,ET'T'ONER Union of lndia, represented by its Secretary, tvlinistry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Secretariat, New Delhi.
The Priniipal Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad GST Commissionerate, GST Bhavan, L.B.Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500004. ...RESPONDENTS AND 1 2 Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order especially in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in Order-in - Original No.HYD-EXCU5-002 -COM -26-20-21 dated 21-08- 2020, passed by the Respondent No.2 and quash the same as being illegal, atbitraty, unlawful and contrary to the provisions of the Finance Act, 2014, contrary to F
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.