M/S. C M Hydro Systems Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax
Held
The Court held that the impugned order, passed under Section 73 of the CGST/GST Act, 2017, was not valid for the financial year 2024-25. The Court noted that Section 73, as applicable to the proceedings, did not extend to the financial year 2024-25. The respondents conceded that the order should have been passed under Section 74A and that the reference to Section 73 was a technical error. Consequently, the Court found the impugned order liable to be set aside. The Court also left it open to the respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law, if they were so advised. The writ petition was allowed, and there was no order as to costs.
Facts
M/s. C M Hydro Systems Private Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging a show-cause notice dated 13.03.2025 and an order dated 03.05.2025, both passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (respondent No. 1). The impugned order was passed under Section 73 of the CGST/GST Act, 2017, for the period June 2024 - September 2024. The petitioner also challenged an arrear notice dated 30.09.2026 and consequential recovery proceedings. In the alternative, the petitioner sought permission to file a statutory appeal against the impugned order out of limitation. The petitioner contended that the order was void, arbitrary, illegal, and violative of constitutional provisions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order passed under Section 73 of the CGST/GST Act, 2017, is valid for the financial year 2024-25? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that Section 73 of the Act applies only to financial years up to 2023-24. Since the financial year involved is 2024-25, the proceedings ought to have been initiated under Section 74A of the Act, making the order passed under Section 73 void. Respondents' contention: The respondents conceded that the impugned order ought to have been passed under Section 74A of the Act and that the reference to Section 73 was a technical error. They submitted that the order could be construed as one passed under Section 74A.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 74A, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
[ 3s23 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATH] RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 35140 OF 2026 Between: M/s. C M Hydro Systems Private Limited, Plot No.203/'1, Phase ll, lDA, Sector 3, Lane 4, Cherlapally, Rangareddy, Telangana - 500051. Represented by its Director, lgala Channa Mallikarjuna, Aged about 49, S/o lgala Basavaiah, R/o 5-8-34/1 , Villa No. 9, Omsree Malabar Greens, Maher Road, Behind Green Park Apartments, Yapral, Medchal-Malkajgiri, Telangana - 500087 ..,PETITIONER AND 1. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Nacharam-ll Circle, Malkajgiri Division, Sth Floor, Gagan Vihar Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500001
The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Cherlapally Circle, Uppal Division, Hyderabad, Telangana
State of Telangana, Through Principal Secretary to Government Revenue Department (Commercial Tax), Hyderabad, Telangana ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavi
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.