Remanded

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

Telangana HC15 Dec 2022WP/33334/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted interim opportunity of hearing and remanded matter to Assistant Commissioner to conduct proper inquiry and personal hearing before passing final order on excess GST input credit claim, rejecting unilateral confirmation without affording opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 05.05.2022 set aside and matter remanded to Assistant Commissioner for fresh inquiry and issuance of show cause notice with 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

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

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

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 33334 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

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

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Assistant Commrssioner of State Tax, Maredoallv Circle. Beoumoet Division, 6-3-789, 6th Floor, Pavani Prestige, Ameerfiet, Hyd'erabad -'5000'16

¶13

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

¶14

3 State of Telangana, l hrough Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department (Commercial lax) Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction partrcularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS seeking declaration that the order vide Ref. MpLy/DRC01/36AAPPV0818A|ZQ-2 dated 05.052022 passed by Respondent No.1 demanding Rs.72,45,060/- and consequential demand notice in DRC-07 vide Ref No.2D360522002909E dated 07.05 2022 issued by the Respondent No.1, for the period April 201 9 to March 2020 is jn violation of the principles of natural justice, illegal, arbitrary, without authority of law, and violative of Article 14 and Article 19(1Xg) of the Constitution of lndia.

¶17

! I I

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF²⁰²²

¶19

PetitionUndersectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated intheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCou(maybepleasedto stayallfurtherproceedingsrncludingstayCollectionofthedisputeddemandof Rs.72,45,060/-^{purstrant tolmpugnedOrder vide Ref' MPLY/DRC-} o1/36AAPPVo^{B1BA|ZQ-Zdated 05.05.2022 passed by Respondent No 1 and} consequentialdemandnoticeinDRC-o7videRef,No.ZD360522002909Edated 07.05.2022^{issued by the Respondent No l}

¶20

CounselforthePetitioner:SRl'PRAHLADGADIPELLIFORSRI'KARAN TALWAR

¶21

Counsel for the^{Respondents : SRI'L' VENKATESWAR RAO FORGP FOR} COMMERCIAL^TAX

¶22

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶23

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHIIYAN AND

¶24

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

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.33334 of 2022

¶26

ORDER: eer the Horl'bte the Chief Justie Ujjal Bhuyan)

¶27

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

¶28

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner has assailed legality and validity of the order dated 05.05.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Maredpally Circle, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder excess claim of input tax credit (lTC) of Rs.36,21,951.00 under central^goods and services tax (CGST) and equivalent amount under state goods and services tax (SGST) has been confirmed.

¶29

On 06.09.2022 this Court had^{passed the following}

¶30

order:

¶31

"Challenge made in W.P.No.33292 of 2022 is to t / the order dated O5.O5.2022 passed by the Assistant I Commissioner (ST), Maredpally Circle, Hyderabad, \

¶32

¶33

whereby and^{whereunder excess claim ofITC of} Rs.4 i,10,622.OO^{under CGST arrd Rs 41' 10'622'OO} under^{SGSThas been confirmed'}

¶34

Challenge^{made in W'P'No'33334 of 2022 is to} the order^{datedO5.05'2O22 passed by tJle Assistart} Commissioner^{(ST), MaredpallyCircle'Hyderabad'} whereby ald^{whereunder excess claim ofITC of} Rs.36,21,951.00^{under CGST and Rs'36'21'951'00} under^{SGSThas been confi'rmed'}

¶35

The aforesaid^{orders show that show cause notice} was first issued^{to the petitioner on 3O 04'2021 and} reminder was^{issued thereafterot02 '06 '2021and} a-1most aJter^{a year the impugnedorders came to be} passed.

¶36

Learned counsel^{for the petitioner submits tl.at} no notice^{of personal hearingwas issued tothe} petitioner.

¶37

On the other^{hand, Mr' L'VenkateswaraRao'} learned counsel^{for the respondentshave produced} before us a^{palchalamadated15'12'2O2Oand a letter} dated 08.O1.2O21^{issued from theoffice ofthe} Directorate^{General of GSTIntelligence' Visakhapatnam} ZonaT^{lJrrit,addressedto the ChiefCommissioner of} State Tax,^{Hyderabad,and submitsthat petitionerhas} not carried out^{any businessactivityfor the last six} years, but they^{are passing on GST credit by issuing} GST invoices^{wittroutsupplyof goods'}

¶38

Be that as it^{may, we find that sub-section(a) of} Section 75 of the^{CentralGoods ald ServicesTaxAct'} 2Ol7, deals with^{twocontingenciesFirstly' an} I opportunity of^{personal hearing isgra-nted when a} request is made^{in writingby the personcha-rgeable with} I tax or^{penalty.Secondly, an opportunity of hearingis} grarted where aly^{adverse decisionis contemplated}

¶39

I I

¶40

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

On his request, list on 26.09.2022."

¶44

ThereaJter in the hearing held on 26.O9.2022 Mr. L.Venkateswar Rao, learned counsel for the respondents produced before us copy of the show cause notice dated 31.04.2021 followed by reminder dated 02.06.2027 issued to the petitioner. He further submitted that impugned order was earlier uploaded in the common portal.

¶45

In the hearing today, Mr. L.Venkateswar Rao, learned counsel for the respondents while reiterating his previous contention has submitted that the show cause 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 Tax Act, 2017. However, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶46

t Ir

¶47

¶48

Submitsthatonlg.o|'2o2l,theGsTregistrationofthe Therefore, Petitioner^{could not} petitioner^{was cancelled'} access the^common Portal'

¶49

On due consideration,^{lve are of the view that it} would only^{be in the interest of justice if the petitioneris} granted arr^{opportunityofhearing by the Assistant} Commissioner^{before passing a fresh order in accordance} rvith law.

¶50

In view of^{the above, we set aside the order dated} O5.C15.2O22^{and remand the matter back to the flle of} AssistantCommissioner(ST),MaredpallyCircle' Hyderabad.^{The order dated 05'05'2022'thottgh has been} set aside,^{may be construed as the showcause noticeby} the petitioner^{on the basis of which it sha-llsubmit its reply} Thereafter,^{the Assistant} within fifteen^{daYs from todaY'} Circle, Hyderabad,^shall Commissioner^{(ST), MaredPallY} pass appropriate^{order after giving due opportunity of} hearing to the^{petitioner, includingpersonalhearing'}

¶51

This disposes^{of the writ petition'}

¶52

¶53

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶54

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

¶55

SD/.B.SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Assistant Commissioner of State 1ax. l,4aredpally Circle, Begumpet Division, 6-3-789, 6th Floor, Pavani Prestige, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500016

¶62

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

¶63

The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department (Commercial Tax), State ofTelangana, Hyderabad-T S

¶64

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

¶65

Two CCs to GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶66

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 511212022

ORDER

WP.No.33334 of 2022

1 !C.8. ST4rt
a
I
c i:i
i) 2 X lrN ?sll
*
I'r i Fr'.-i c

¶75

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶76

WITHOUT COSTS

¶77

@ota 3.o q\o^,-'u

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