Disposed

M/s. Syed Mustafa Shareef v. The Joint Commissioner (in-situ) of Central Tax

Telangana HC6 Jun 2023WP/13800/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Andhra Pradesh-High-Court-of-India-Telegana-at-Hyderabad-diplomed-writ-petition-challenging-Service-tax-assessmont-orders-passed-beyond-limitation-under-section-73-driven-Cluetnre-Ac-in-nis-foesorndrt로서-court-held-that-petitioner-should-expressly-prefer-an-appeal-un-der-section-95-of-the-Finance-Act-199-rea with-section-35lef-the-central."),(excise-act-1944-instged-of-parfle-filing-eft-observe

What the court decided

AI extract

M/s. Syed Mustafa Shareef Vs The Joint Commissioner… — GST and Indirect Tax | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹¹ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 13800 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. Syed Mustafa Shareef, Aged 61 years, 22-5-675, Chowk Maidan, Yakutpura, Charminar, Hyderabad - 500002, Telangana ...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

:1. The Joint Commissioner (in-situ) of Central Tax, Abids CGST Division, 5-8196 to 5-8-207lA, lst Floor, Akira Shikra Plaza, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500001, Telangana.

¶11

The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Abids GST Division, 5-8-196 to 5-8-207lA,^'1st Floor, Akira Shikra Plaza, Nampally, Hyderabad - 50000'1 , Telangana.

¶12

The Union of lndia, rep. by its Secretary (Finance), Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi -'l'10001.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring, that the action of the First Respondent in passing the impugned Order-in-Original no. O5l2O23-Adjn (ST), dated 06-03-2023, under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, for the Period April, 2016 to June, 2017, by invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to S. 73(1) which is not applicable, and in any case passed even beyond the extended period of limitation for majority of the period for which the impugned order was passed, and further imposing penalties, and interest, without considering the objections and case laws filed by the Petitioner and not pas'sing the impugned order within the time^prescribed by the Circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, dated^'1 0-03-2017 , and when he is not the officer who issued the show cause notice, as contrary to law, facts, without^{jurisdiction,} violative of the

¶15

principles of natural justice, barreU by limitation and illegal and consequently set aside the same

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶17

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all fu(her proceedings, including collection of service tax, interest and penalties, pursuant to the impugned Order-in-Original no. 05i2023-Adjn (ST), dated 06-03-2023, under Chapter V of the Finance Act,^'1994, for the Period April. 2016 to June, 2017

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. G. NARENDRA CHETTY

¶19

counsel for the Respondents No]1&2: SRl. DOMtNtC FERNANDES

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRl. c. PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY. SOLICITOR GEN OF INDIA

¶21

The Court made the following: O[Oen

¶22

¶23

THE HON'BLETHE CHIE F II]STICE UIIAL BHI'YAN AND

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE N.TUKARAMII W.P.No.13800 of 2023

¶25

ORDE^per the Hon'bh lhe Chief J $ie Ulal Bhayr)

¶26

Heard Mt. G.Narendra Chetry, learned counsel for the pedrroner and M-r. Dominic Fernandes, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and^2. We have also heard Mr. G.Praveen I(umar, learned Depury Solicrtor General of India representing respondcnt No.3.

¶27

2 tsy filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constituuon of India, petiuoncr has assailed legatry and vahdiry o[ thc order-in-ongrnal dated 06.03.2023 passed by the Joint Commissioncr of Central^'I'ax, Abids, CGST Division, Hydcrabad confirming the demands of Rs.10,38,311.00 and Rs.1,69,767/- as service tax payable by the pcutioner lor the petiods from April, 2016 to March, 2011 and Lpri, 201,1 to J,toc, 2017 respectively in terms of proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance A,ct, 1994 besides levyrng interest and imposing penalties

¶28

Though learned counsel for rhe pcdnoner has vehemently argued that the impugned order is beyond^limitacion and^{thereforc without} iprisdiction, on going through the provisions of Section 73 o[ the Finance Act, 1994 and the impugned order,^{we are} o[^{thc vierv that this is a case}

¶29

r '..4'q '/^

¶30

¶31

rvhich may re<1uirc adjudicatron even ofl the issue as to whcthei rhe impugned order is, as a matter ol [act, beyond iimitadon

¶32

In rhese circumsranccs, we are o[ the view that pctitioner should avail thc rerredv of appeal as provided under Section g5 of the Irrnance Act, 1994 read wrth Section 35F of the Central Ilxcise t\ct, 1944.

¶33

5 We make it clear that iF the appeal is prefcrred by thc petrrioner within thirry days from today, the same shall be consiclered bv the

¶34

appcllatc authoriry in accordance with law. All contenti.ns are l<ept open

¶35

6 With the above observatron, Writ petition is disposcd o[. No costs

¶36

A s a se qucl, miscellancous petltions, pending if any, stand closccl.

¶37

SD/- P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANtr REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// (&

¶38

SECTION OFFICER

¶39

To,

¶40

1 The Joint Commissioner (in-situ) of Central Tax, Abids CGST Division, 5-8-196 lo 5-8-2071A,lst Floor, Akira Shikra Plaza, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500001 , Telangana.

¶41

2 The Assistant Commissionerl of Central Tax, Abids GST Division, 5-8-'196 to 5-8-207lA, 1st Floor, Akira Shikra Plaza, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500001, Telangana.

¶42

3 The Secretary, Union of lndia,(Finance), Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001 .

¶43

4 One CC to SRl. G. NARENDRA CHETTY, Adyocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI.DOMINIC FERNANDES, Advocate [OPUC]

¶44

b One CC to SRl.G. PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY. SOLICITOR GEN OF INDIA loPUCl

¶45

7 Two CD Copies BIV GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610612023

ORDER

WP.No.13800^{of 2023}

¶51

1 YTE SIA ,F
t
(
g q- zz JUtlz$23
.t
t + /2
a'ri "'-

¶52

DISPOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶53

())^/<

¶54

@-6*

¶55

0A
b\1'e
"t<br>

M/s. Syed Mustafa Shareef v. The Joint Commissioner (in-situ) of Central Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/s. Syed Mustafa Shareef v. The Joint Commissioner (in-situ) of Central Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Sai Balaji Township Welfare Society Vs Sai Balaji Infra Developers and 3 others

Sri Sai Balaji Township Welfare Society Vs Sree Sai Balaji Developers

Sri Sai Balaji Township Welfare Society Vs Sree Sai Balaji Developers and 2 others

M/s. Lavybens Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Union of India and 2 others

Sri P. Rami Reddy Vs Income Tax Officer

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iii, Hyderabad Vs State Bank of Hyderabad