M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of Telangana

Held

The Court acknowledged that the Petitioner had already furnished payment proofs to the respondent-authorities on September 29, 2026. To resolve the dispute, the Court directed the Petitioner to furnish another copy of all assessment orders and particulars of payments made to Respondent No. 3 (Assistant Commissioner). Respondent No. 3 was then instructed to scrutinize these documents and pass a fresh order to determine if any demand for arrears of tax, interest, or penalty was still outstanding. Pending this decision, the respondents were restrained from taking any coercive steps against the Petitioner concerning the impugned recovery notices. Simultaneously, the Petitioner was directed to maintain a minimum balance equivalent to the demanded amount. The Petitioner was to approach Respondent No. 3 within two weeks, and Respondent No. 3 was to decide within six weeks thereafter. The Writ Petition was disposed of accordingly.

Facts

M/s. Bangi Mines & Minerals (the Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging recovery notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) for demands totaling ₹50,14,144. These notices pertained to tax, penalty, and interest for the financial years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022. The Petitioner contended that they had already paid the assessed tax and submitted payment proofs on September 29, 2026. They argued that the recovery notices were issued without considering these payments, without providing year-wise calculations, and without establishing compliance with Section 78 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Petitioner sought to set aside the recovery notices to the extent of paid demands and requested a reasoned order after reconciliation of liabilities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the recovery notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) are illegal and arbitrary for demanding ₹50,14,144 without considering the payment proofs submitted by the Petitioner for the financial years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022, and without providing proper year-wise calculations of tax, penalty, and interest, thereby violating statutory requirements under Section 78 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner argued that the demand notices were invalid because they had already paid the entire tax assessed by the respondent-Department. They claimed to have apprised the Department of these periodical payments, leaving no dues. Therefore, imposing interest and penalty was unjustified. Respondents' arguments: The learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax submitted that based on the material available, it was difficult to ascertain whether the tax had been paid. They suggested that the Petitioner approach the respondents to obtain relevant material regarding payments made against assessment orders for the financial years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022, after which the authorities would take appropriate steps.