Dismissed

M/s.Kanukula Sadaiah v. The Deputy Commissioner

Telangana HC15 Dec 2022WP/26086/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the petitioner's service tax demand order required adjudication on limitation. The Court directed the petitioner to avail the appeal remedy under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 within thirty days and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file appeal under Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994 within thirty days; writ petition dismissed.

M/s.Kanukula Sadaiah Vs The Deputy Commissioner — GST and Indirect Tax | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32s5 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERAEAD} (SPecial Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶3

THURSDAY,^{THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{THE CHIEFJUSTICEUJJAL BHUYAN} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEC.V. BHASKAR REDDY}

¶6

WRIT PETITI^{ONNO :26O86OF2O22}

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s Kanukula Sadaiah,^{H No.5-33/1, Rag havapoor Post,KarimnagarDistrict.} Now PeddaPalli^{District. State} of Telangana Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.Kanukula^Sadaiah

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Deputy^{Commissioner, Office,of the Assl Commissioner of CentralTax'} ' centrar"r'i6it" anO serviij rii, Mancherial Division' Ward No^'1 ' By Pass Road, Mancherial^{-504 208.}

¶12

The Union^{of lndia,Rep. by its Secreta.ryto Government'Departmentof} Revenue,^{Ministryof Finance, New Delhl'}

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under^{Article 226 of the constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiled therewith'the High Court may be} pleased to issue any^{order or directionmoreparticularly one in the nature of Writ} of Mandamus^{or any other appropriateWritor Orderor direction declaringthe} aotionofthelstrespondentinpassingtheorder-in-originalNo'16/2021-22Ad.in-ST, dated^{30. 12 2021, served on the Petitioneron 1OlO1l2O22'for the tax} periods 2014-15 and^{2015-16underthe ServiceTax as per the Finance Act'} .1994, without considering the objections of the Petitioner' without^granting exemption on^{-abatement portion'and without making any enquiries'as arbitrary'} contrary to law,^{weight of evidenceand probabilitiesof the case and also the} same is barred^{by limitatlon for the tax periods 2014-15 and 2015-16 and further} the Order-in-Original^{is in violationof Principlesof Natural Justiceand Rule of}

¶15

LawandconsequentlySetasidetheorder.in-originalNo-16/2021-22-Adjn-ST, dated 3011212021,^{passed by the 1st respondent as null and void'}

¶16

IA NO :1OF 2O22

¶17

Petition under section^{151CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High court may be pleased to} Suspend the operation of^{the order-in.originalNo.1612o21-22-Adjn.ST, dated} 30.12.2021 , served on the^{Petitioner on 1O.O1 .2022, passed by the 1st} respondent for the tax^{periods 2014-15and 2015-16 under the ServiceTaxas} per the Finance Act, 1994,^{pending disposalof the abovewrit petition'as} othei"wise, the Petitioner^{will be put to severe loss andhardship'}

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl.^{SHAIK JEELANI BASHA}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents:^{DOMINICFERNANDES (Senior standing} counsel for CBIC)

¶20

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶21

I I

¶22

I I

¶23

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF IUSTICE UIIAI BHUYAN

¶24

AND

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶26

W.P.No.26086 of 2022

¶27

ORDER (Per rhe Hor'b/e the Chief Jutice Ltjjal Bhryaa)

¶28

Heard Mr. Shaik Jcelani Basha, learned counsel for the

¶29

petitioner and Mr. Dominic Fernandcs, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶30

By hling this petition under Article 226 of the Constimion of India, petitioner has assailcd legaliry and vaLidiry of the order-in origrnal dated 30.12.2021 passed by tespondent No.1 leryrng service tax of Rs.13,92,489.00 for the periods 2014-15 and2015-76 in terms of ptoviso to Scction 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1.994 rcad with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Services^'I'ax fucr,201.7 besides levy of interest and penalty.

¶31

Though learned counsel lor thc petitioner submits that the impugned order is beyond limitation, on going through the provisions of Section 73 o[ the Finance Act, 1994, we are of the view that this is a case, which may require adjudication as to

¶32

¶33

whether the impugned orcicr is, as a matter o[ [act, bevond

¶34

Iirnitation.

¶35

In these circumstances, we are of the view that petitioner should avail the remedy of appeal as provided under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1,994 read rvith Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1.944

¶36

If the appeal is pteferred by the petitioner within thirry days [rom today, the same shall be considered by tl're appeliate authoriry in accordance with law.

¶37

)7ith the above observation,^\X/rit Petition is disposed of. No

¶38

costs.

¶39

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

¶40

closed.

¶41

Sd/.MOHD SANAULLAH^ANSARI ASslsrAtTEJ1GlsrRAR

¶42

¶43

//TRUE COPY// secitotiorrtcen

¶44

to'',l. -n" Deputy Commis-sioner' Office of the Assl Commissioner of Central^Tax' i'l]"1'lininoiii^{o''ision' ward No 1 Bv Pass}

¶45

r:entrel Excise "no ""iliElj

¶46

, B!:,t;,1|':t[l9:;:Li3i:ihe^{Union or rndia' Departmentor Revenue'}

¶47

ili,iittrv 6t Finance, New Delhi'

¶48

3 one cc to sRt^{sHnrK'iiiLAr'rr gp-{A,'Adv-ocateIoPUC]} a one cc to snl ootirtttit"Cf-En'Ninrloes^{(seniorstanding counsel tor} cetcr Advocate IoPUC]

¶49

Two^{CD CoPies}

SK BS

BSK

HIGH COURT

DATED:1^511212022

ORDER

WP.No.26086^{of 2022}

¶56

H
',rr
\ \J;
a
:)c 2 5 J A ?i]73
.t c

¶57

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶58

M/s.Kanukula Sadaiah v. The Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Kanukula Sadaiah v. The Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. Narendra Reddy Vs The District Collector, Hyderabad District

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iii, Hyderabad. Vs M/S Venkateswara Hatcheries Ltd., Hyderabad.

M/S. Egg Guard Vs Income Tax Officer

M/s.Kanukula Srinivas Vs The Deputy Commissioner

M/s.Suvarna Traders Vs The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

M/s.Suvarna Traders Vs The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax