Partly allowed

M/s.Kanukula Srinivas v. The Deputy Commissioner

Telangana HC15 Dec 2022WP/26596/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a writ petition challenging a Service Tax order. The court held the matter required adjudication regarding limitation and directed the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 within thirty days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to prefer appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 within thirty days; writ petition disposed of without costs.

M/s.Kanukula Srinivas Vs The Deputy Commissioner — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32es ]

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{THE CHIEF JUSTICEUJJAL BHUYAN} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKARREDDY}

¶6

WRIT PETITION^{NO:2 6596 0F 2022}

¶7

Between:

¶8

tvl/s.Kanukula^{srinivas.H No.4266/1} ',1 . Ragtravapur Darga, Raghavapur, Karimnagar^{District,iliw p"OJrpitt' District.-State'of Telangana. Rep. by its} Proprietol tVlr.Kanukula^Srinivas'

¶9

,..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Deputy^{Commissioner,Office of the AssLCommis,sionerof CentralTax'} c"ntraf^{gx6iJand Serviceiax' traanctrerialDivision' Ward No 1' By Pass} Road, Mancherial^{- 504 208.}

¶12

2 The Union of^{lndia,Rep.by its Secretary to Government' Department of} nevenue, Ministry^{of Finarice,NewDelhi'}

¶13

..,RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under^{Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybe pleasedtoissueanyorderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureofWrit ofMandamusoranyotherappropriateWritororderordirectiondeclaringthe actionofthelstrespondentinpassingtheorder-in-originalNo.,lT12021.22Adjn-ST.dated3012.2021,servedonthePetitioneron1001'2022'forthetax period 2014-15 under^{the Service Tax as per the Finance Act' 1994' without} considering the^{objections of the Petitioner, without granting exemption on} abatement^{portion, without making any enquiries'as arbitrary' contraryto law'} weight of evidence^{and probabilitiesof the caseand alsothe sameis barredby} limitationforthetaxperiod2ol4.lSandfurthertheorder-in-originalisin violationofPrinciplesofNaturalJusticeandRuleofLawandconsequentlySet

¶15

aside the Order-in-Origin al No 1712021-22-Adjn-ST, dated 30 12 2O21, passed by the 1st respondent as null and void.

¶16

lA NO: 'l OF 2022

¶17

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 suspend the operation of the Order-in-Original No.1712021-22-Adjn-ST, dated 30.12.2021 , served on the Petitioner on 1O.01 .2022, passed by the 1st respondent for the tax period 2014- 15 under the Service Tax as per the Finance Act, 1994, pending disposal of the above writ petition, as otherwise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl SHAIK JEELANI BASHA

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: DOMINIC FERNANDES (senior standing counsel for CBIC)

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

I I

I I

H THE T B

AND

HE LE CE RED W.P.No. 26596 of 2022

¶26

ORDER: per the lJolbh the Chief Jntte ujjal Bhryat)

¶27

Heard Mr. Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel for the

¶28

petitioner and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, Iearned counsel for the respondents.

¶29

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constiturion of India, petitioner has assailed legaliry and validiry of the order-inorigrnal dated 30.12.2021 passed by respondent No.1 levying ser-vice tax of Rs.3,33,745.00 for the period 2014-15 in terms of proviso to Secrion 73Q) of the Finance Acr, 1994 read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Services Tu Act, 2017 besides lery of intcrest and penalty.

¶30

Though learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is beyond limitation, on going through the provisions of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 7994, we are of the view that this is a case, which may require adjudication as to

¶31

whether the impugned order is, as a mattef of hct, beyond limitation.

¶32

In these circumstances, \€ aie of the r.iew that petidoner should avail the remedy of appeal as provided under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 tead rvirh Section 35F of the Cenral Excise 4ct,1,944.

¶33

If the appeal is preferred by the petitioner within thirry days from today, the same shall be considered by the appellate authoriry in accordancc with law

¶34

\X/ith the above observation, \X/rit Petition is disposed oL No

¶35

costs.

¶36

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending i[ any, srand

¶37

closed.

¶38

¶39

Sd/.MOHD SANAULLAH^ANSARI ASSISTANT,,,]REFISTRAR //rRUE coPY// I^{l', ,---'}

¶40

SECTION^OFFICER

¶41

To,

¶42

The Deputy Commissioner,^{Office of the AsstCommissionerof Central Tax'} ' c"ntraf "gr6ise and Service Tax. Mancherial Division Ward No 1, By Pass Road, Mancherial^{- 504 208.}

¶43

Z. f ne Secietary to^{Gouernment,The Unionof lndia,Departmentof Revenue'} It/linistrv of Finance. New Delhi.

¶44

:. one cb to sRl^{SHAIKJEELANI BASHA,Advocate} IoPUC] ;. on; ca io sit^{ootrltNtc FERNANDES (senior standing counsel for} CBIC) Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD copies SK BS

6SR

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 511212022

ORDER

WP.No.26596 of²⁰²²

|\ i:. $i'.-i ,,+
a' t
c
i.) 27 J[il 20n
>- airf ri'?i

¶51

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITON} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶52

*
f.t"'
we-

M/s.Kanukula Srinivas v. The Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Kanukula Srinivas 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 Sadaiah 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