Disposed

M/s. Jayaraj Agencies, v. The Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Dec 2024WP/12996/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposes of Writ Petition 12996 of 2024 filed by M/s. Jayaraj Agencies challenging a tax order regarding input tax credit. The court held the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Circular No. 237/31/2024-GST subject to prescribed conditions and closed pending miscellaneous applications.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner held entitled to benefit of Circular No. 237/31/2024-GST subject to conditions; miscellaneous applications closed.

M/s. Jayaraj Agencies, Vs The Union of India — GST and Indirect Tax | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV
(Special Original Jurisdiction) r-
A A
THURSDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR 1] >
fhj
o
PRESENT

¶2

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION MO; np ■)n’>A

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s. Jayaraj Agencies, 15/274, Main Road, Kamalapuram, YSR District Andhra Pradesh - 516289, Rep. by its Partner, C. Venkata Subba Raja. ’ ...PETITIONER

¶6

AND

¶7

The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary (Finance), Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001

¶8

The State of An(dhra Pradesh, ^ Rep. by the Secretary to the

¶9

Government, Revenue (CT) Department , A.P. Secretariat Buildings,

¶10

Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh

¶11

The Superintendent of Central Tax, Central GST Range, Kadapa, D.

¶12

No. 1/2553-1, IV Floor, LKR Towers , Rajiv Marg Road, APHB Colony,

¶13

Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District 516004 I Andhra Pradesh.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in he crcumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUSi. Declaring S. 16(4) of the

¶16

CGST/SGST Acts, 2017, as violative of Article 14, 19 (1)(g) and 300-A of the,,Constitution of India or in the alternative hold^thatS. 16(4) is not applicable to the present case or declare that the period of limitation prescribed in S. 16(4) is only procedural in nature^andthatS. 16(2) has overriding effect over S. 16(4) while claiming eligible input tax in the respective monthly GSTR 3B return, ii. Declaring the^{impugnedOrder-in-} Original No. YL0401- 69-2023-24, dated 15-12-2023,^{passedbytheThird} Respondent for the Tax Periods March, 2019 to March,^2020underthe CGST/SGST and IGST Acts, 2017, as contrary to law, without jurisdiction, unjustified, unsustainable and illegal and consequently^{setasidethesame,} and iii) pass

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Stay of all further proceedings including^{collectionoftax,} interest and penalty pursuant to the impugned Order-in-Original No. YL0401-69-2023-24, dated 15-12-2023, passed by the Third Respondent for the Tax Periods March, 2019 to March, 2020 under^theCGST/SGST and IGST Acts, 2017,

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner{s): SRI. G NARENDRA CHETTY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI PASALA PONNA RAO,^DEPUTY

¶21

SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI SANTHI CHANDRA (Jr. Standing Counsel for CBIC)

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: M/s KAVYA MUPPIDI

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

APHC010258822024

¶26

Bench Sr.No:-41 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3446] AT AMARAVATI

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO; 12996 of 2024

¶28

...Petitioner

¶29

...Petitioner M/s. Jayaraj Agencies Vs. The Union of India and others ...Respondents

¶30

¶31

Advocate for Petitioner Mr. G Narendra Chetty Advocate(s) for Respondent(s); Deputy Solicitor General - R.1 Ms. Santhi Chandra (Jr. Standing Counsel for CBIC) - R.2 Ms. Kavya Muppidi - R.3

¶32

CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶33

DATE : 5*^ December, 2024

¶34

PC:

¶35

Learned counsel for the respondents does not deny the^factthatthe petitioner is entitled to the benefit of input tax^{creditundertheCentralGoods} & Services Tax Act, 2017 in terms of Circular No.237/31/2024-GST^subjectto the fulfillment of the conditions and the procedure^{prescribedtherein.}

¶36

¶37

¶38

HCJ & RRR,J WP 12996 2024

¶39

Be that as it may, we dispose of the present Writ Petition holding that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid Circular. In case any cause survives, it is open to the petitioner to approach this Court again. No order as to costs.

¶40

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand^closed.

¶41

Sd/- B. PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Secretary (Finance), Union of India, Ministry^{ofFinance,North} Block, New Delhi - 110001.

¶46

The Secretary to the Government, , Revenue (CT)^{Department,AP.} Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District,^{AndhraPradesh}

¶47

3 The Superintendent of Central Tax, Central GST Range^Kadapa D. No 1/2553-1, IV Floor, LKR Towers, Rajiv Marg Road,^APHBColony Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District 516004, Andhra Pradesh.

¶48

One CC to Sri. G Narendra Chetty Advocate [OPUC]

¶49

5 One CC to Sri. Santhi Chandra (Jr. Standing Counsel^for CBIC) Advocate [OPUC]

¶50

One CC to M/s Kavya Muppidi, Advocate [OPUC].

¶51

7 Two CCs to Sri Pasala Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor^{GeneralofIndia} [OPUC].

¶52

THREE CD Copies

KIGH COURT ■

DATED:05/12/2024

ORDER

WP.No.12996 of 2024

Vm
\ 2 DEC im CO
O
current Secuon

¶60

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

M/s. Jayaraj Agencies, v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Jayaraj Agencies, v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Desaboina Kalyan Vs the Union of India

M Chandra Vamsi Krishna Vs the National Board of Medical Exminations

Myla Srinivasa Rao Vs Sri P Bhaskar IAS

Mallela Venkata Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. Rokkan Suvarna Ratnakar, E.G. Dist. Vs Prl. Secy., Dept. of Home, Hyd. & 3 Ors.

Nimra Institute of Medical Sciences Vs Shaik Mohamed Hafeezuddin Khamri