A two-judge bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a writ petition challenging a GST intimation letter under Section 74(5) without addressing merits, holding that the statutory appeal remedy was the appropriate route.
The petition was dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
o
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRft ji
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
VI
o
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT PETITION NO: 9400 OF 2024
Between:
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction particularlyone in the nature of Writ of Mandamus Declare the intimation letter dated 21.02.2024 under section 74(5) inaction of the respondents 1 to 4 as violative the of Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of India consequently to suspend the intimation letter, dated 21.02.2024 under section 74(5) against the petitioners herein and direct the respondent no. 3 and 4 to take appropriate steps by raising the attachment of the bank accounts of the petitioners and permit the petitioners herein to operate the bank accounts and direct the respondent no. 5 for clearing the service taxes, GST and other taxes along with interests and penalties imposed by the authorities.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying thatinthecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,theHighCourtmaybe pleased to direct the respondent no.3 and 4 to takeappropriatestepsby raising the attachment of the bank accounts of thepetitionersandpermitthe petitioners herein to operate the bank accounts until disposal of this writ petition.
lA NO: 2 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying thatinthecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent no. 5 for clearingtheservicetaxes,GSTand other taxes along with interests and penalties imposedbytheauthorities.
lA NO: 3 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying thatinthecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the intimation letter, dated: 21.02.2024undersection74(5) against the petitioners herein until disposal of thiswritpetition.
Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. ARJAMPUDI RAMAKOTESWARARAO
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel)
Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 4 : Ms. SANTHI CHANDRA,JSCFOR CBIC
The Court made the following: ORDER
APHC010179882024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
[3481]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT PETITION NO: 9400/2024
Between:
Kilaru Mahalakshmi and Others
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The Union Of India and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.ARJAMPUDI RAMA KOTESWARA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
The Court made the following;
Heard Sri Arjampudi Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Y. V. Anil Kumar, learned CentralGovernmentCounselfor the respondent No.1 and Ms. Santhi Chandra, learned Junior Standing Counsel for C.B.I.C. for the respondent Nos.2 to 4.
dated 2. The petitioner is challenging the intimation letter 21.02.2024 under Section 74(5) of the Central GoodsandServicesTaxAct, 2017 (in short, the Act, 2017) as also the consequentialreliefs.
- Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petition^. are the landlords and their tenant has not paid theGST amount to the petitioners. He further submits that the suit has also been filed against the tenant. He submits that the petitioners are ready to make the payment of the GST amount from arrears, but not the entire amount as their tenant has not paid the same to the petitioners.
- The order impugned in the writ petition is appealableunderthe
statute. The submission as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners as aforesaid does not attract any of the exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of alternative remedy so as to entertain the writ petition.
- We are not inclined to entertain the writ petition, in view of the availability of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. The petition is dismissed on that ground alone.
- The petitioner is at liberty to take the recourse tothealternative remedy, if so advised, as per law.
- No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if anypending,shallalso
| stand clo | sed. Sd/- K L PAV/.Nl ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICE |
|---|---|
| To, | |
| 1. | One CC to SRI ARJAMPUDI RAMA KOTESWARA RAO Advocate |
| [OPUC] | |
| 2. | One CC to SRI YV ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel) [OPUC] |
| 3. | One CC to Ms. SANTHI CHANDRA, JSC for CBIC [OPUC] |
| 4. | Three CD Copies |
| Madh | u |
| PRK |
Sd/- K L PAV/.Nl ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER
HIGH COURT
DATED:25/04/2024
ORDER
WP.No.9400 of 2024
f,
/ x:
2 6 DEC 202ii J
‘'5s-'At
DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging an intimation letter under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 can be entertained when a statutory appeal remedy is available.
Whether thedoctrine of exhaustion of alternative remedy applies to the present challenge.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Kilaru Mahalakshmi and Another
The Union of India
Ravi Nath Tilhari
Kiranmayee Mandava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
