Remanded

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

Telangana HC15 Dec 2022WP/33292/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order confirming excess input tax credit, observing violation of natural justice. The petitioner was granted an opportunity of personal hearing before issuing a fresh order.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 05.05.2022 confirming excess ITC was set aside, and the matter remanded to the Assistant Commissioner (ST) to pass a fresh order after granting due opportunity of personal hearing.

M/s.Suvarna Traders Vs The Assistant Commissioner of… — GST and Indirect Tax | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^329s ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:33292 OF 2022

¶7

Between

¶8

M/s.Suvarna Traders, Represented by its Proprietor, Mr.Bhikshapathi Vangala Having its office at PIot No. 99, Suvarna Traders, Vasavi Nagar, Secunderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500015

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Maredpally Circle, Begumpet Division, 6-3-789, 6th Floor, Pavani Prestige, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 5000'16

¶12

2 The Commissioner of State Taxes C.T, Complex, Nampally Hyderabad - 500004

¶13

State of Telangana, Through Principal Secretary to Government Revenue Department (Commercial Tax) Hyderabad, Telangana

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS seeking declaration that the order vide Ref.MPLY/DRC0l/36AAPPVO818A1ZQ-1 dated 05.05.2022 passed by Fiespondent No.1 demanding Rs.82,21 ,2441- and consequential demand notice in DRC-07 vide Ref.No.2D360522002894H dated 07.05.2022 issued by the Respondent No.1, for the period April 2018 to March 2019 is in violation of the^principles of natural justice, illegal, arbitrary, without authority of law, and violative of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of lndia.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

Petition under Iiriclicn 151 C;P,] praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in : tr;r:ort of the,^petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further procee c in;s includirg stay collection of the disputed demand of Rs.82,21 ,2441- purs r rni to lnrcrgned Order vide Ref.MPLY/DRC 01i36AAPPV0B1BA1ZC^-1 dated 05052022 passed by Respondent No.1 and consequential deman l rrotice in DRC)-C7 vide Ref. No.2D360522002894H dated 07.05.2022 issued by tlre llespondr-.r1 No.'l .

¶18

Counsel for the Petitiorr,, : liRl PFtAlll.r\l--t GADIPELLI FOR SRI KARAN TALWAR Counsel for the Respo r le rts: SRI L.'E:NKATESWAR RAO FOR GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶19

The Court made the foll rwirg: ORDt:l?

¶20

¶21

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHIIYAN AND

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.33292 of 2o22

¶24

ORDER: Eer the Hot'ble the Chief Justice Ujjat BhLgan)

¶25

Heard Mr. Prahlad Gadipelli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L.Venkateswar Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶26

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner has assailed legality and validity of the order dated O5.O5.2O22 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Maredpally Circle, Hyderabad, whereby ald whereunder excess claim of input tax credit (ITC) of Rs.41,10,622.00 under central goods and services tax (CGST) arrd equivalent amount under state goods arrd services tax (SGST) has been confirmed.

¶27

On 06.09.2022 this Court had passed t1 e following

¶28

order:

¶29

"Challenge made in W.P.No.33292 of 2022 is to the order dated 05.05.2022 passed by the Assistant I, Commissioner (ST), Maredpally Circle, Hyderabad,

¶30

¶31

---

¶32

whereby irrl whereunder excess claim of ITC of Rs.4I.1( ,,t2).OO under CGST and Rs.41,10,622.OO under St i -iT^-ras been conf-rrmed.

¶33

C r r[l,:nge made in W.P.No.33334 of 2022 is to the ordcr c ated 05.05.2022 passed by the Assistant Commis s,or:t:r (ST). Ivlaredpally Circle, Hyderabad, whereby ard whereunder excess claim of ITC of Rs.36,2 .95 - .0O under CGST and Rs.36,21,951.0O under SlSl has been r:onfirmed.

¶34

T:r : rJbresaid orders sh<iw that shorju cause notice was firs t is r;ued to ttre petitioner on 30.O4.2O2 I and reminde r vres issued therea-fter or 02.06.2021 and, almost a iter a year th,: impugned orders came to be passed.

¶35

I e:r:.:ed counst:l for the petitioner submits that no notkc of personal hearing was issued to the petition e^'.

¶36

( )r r lhe other hand, Mr. L.Venkateswara Rao, learned <rotrnsel for tht: respondents have produced before^rl,i e palchanama dated 15.12.2O20 and a letter dated⁽ tt.l 1.2O21 issued from the ofiice of t] e Directorr tte General o1' GST InteLligence, Visakhapatnam Zonal Jnit, addressed to the Chief Commissioner of State^'I a x, J{yderabad. and submits that petitioner has not ca:ietl out any business activity for the last six years, br-rt they are p:rssing on GST credit by issuing GST in^y. rice s rvithout supply of goods.

¶37

¶38

l: lhat as it m:Ly, we frnd that sub-section (4) of Sectior, 75 of the Cen'.ral Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, leals with turr contingencies. Firstly, an opportrlit)- of personal hearing is granted when a request is rnade in $Titing by the person chargeable with tax or I er a_lty. Secondlv, an opportunity of hearing is grante 1 uhere any adverse decision is contemplated

¶39

¶40

against such person. Prtmo facie, when an adverse order is proposed or contemplated, the person concerned is required to be given an opportunity of hearing.

¶41

At this stage, Mr. L.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondents prays for time to ascertain as to whether any notice was issued to the petitioner or not.

¶42

On his request, list on 26.09.2022."

¶43

Thereafter in the hearing held on 26.09.2022 Mr. L.Venkateswar Rao learned counsel for the respondents produced before us copy of the show cause notice dated 31.O4.2021 followed by reminder dated 02.06.2021 issued to the petitioner. He further submitted that impugned order was earlier uploaded in the common portal.

¶44

In the hearing today, Mr. L.Venkateswar Rao, learned counsel for the respondents while reiterating his previous contention has submitted that the show camse notice as well as notice of personal hearing were uploaded in the common portal which is an accepted mode of service of notice under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services 'Ta:^ Act, 2017. However, learned counsel for the petitioner

t I

-------"""',

submits that rn l9.O1.2cti'.) the GST registration of the petitioner ',l,ar r ,r:irncelled. Therefore, petitioner could not access the cornmc,n portal

¶51

¶52

On due consideralion. we are of the view that it would only b: irr the interest of justice if the petitioner is granted ;fl1 rpgrortunill ot hearing by the Assistant Commissiont r Lefore passing a fresh order in accordance with law.

¶53

In viev' oi the abor,:. we set aside the order dated 05.05.2022 zn,l remarcl tlre matter back to the file of Assistant^{()oramissio:rer} (ST), Maredpally Circle, Hyderabad. lht: order datcd 05.05.2022, though has been set aside, rrLity be constn-red as the show cause notice by the petition,:. or the bas.is of which it shall submit its reply within fiftet r r^,l ays frorn today. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissiorr,:r (ST), MaLre<lpally Circle, Hyderabad, shall pass appr(,1'ri:rte order after giving due opportunit-v of hearing to t 1 r: petitionr'l', including personal hearing.

¶54

¶55

This^, I s[) oses of 1-lrr: rvrit petition.

I I

)

Miscellaneous applications pending, if anf, sha_ll

¶60

stand closed' However, there shalr be no order as to costs.

¶61

Sd/-MOHD SANAULLAI.I ANSARI ASSISTAN ISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶62

SE FFICER

¶63

To,

¶64

1 . The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Maredpally Circle, Begumpet Division, 6-3-789, 6th Floor, Pavani Prestige, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500016

¶65

1. The Commissioner of State Taxes C.T, Complex, Nampally Hyderabad - 500004

¶66

The Principal Secretary to Government Revenue Department (Commercial Tax) Hyderabad, State of Telangana,

¶67

One CC to SRl. KARAN TALWAR, Advocate [OPUC]

¶68

Two CCs to GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX (TG), High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶69

Two CD Copies SK

BSR

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 5112lzt;;lit2

¶74

ORDER

¶75

iHE SIA I4.-
s
oi)
2 5 Jl\l{ ?i123
ri

¶76

WP.No.33292 <rf ,2022

¶77

DISPOSING CtI THE WIIII' PETITION WITHOUT COS TIS

¶78

n ,o^1' ,"\ 6e-

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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.Kanukula Sadaiah Vs The Deputy Commissioner

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