Allowed

M/s.Ta Infra Projects Limited, v. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

Telangana HC15 Jun 2023WP/14820/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order rejecting the petitioner's claim for transitional GST credit under Rule 121 and Sections 73/74 of the CGST Act. The court held the decision was passed hastily without adequate opportunity to submit objections or a hearing. It remanded the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 28.02.2023 rejecting the claim of transitional credit was set aside and remanded back to the respondent for a fresh decision.

M/s.Ta Infra Projects Limited, Vs The Assistant… — GST and Indirect Tax | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹¹ ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH 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: 14820 OF 2023

¶7

Between

¶8

M/s.TA lnfra Projects Limited,, (Formerly known as Taherali lndustries and Projects Limited) D.No.7-1-58, Flat No.10l, 1 St Floor, Amrutha Business Complex, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500 016. Rep. by its Managing Director Mr.M.M.Rehman.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Sanathnagar Circle, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Superintendent, lmbrahimpatnam GST Range, lmbrahimpatnam, Rangareddy, Hyderabad.

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT) Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 Wirt of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction declaring the action of the^'1 st Respondent in passing the Proceedings dated 28.02.2023, without considering the explanation of the Petitioner daled 27 .O2.2O23, as arbitrary, contrary to provisions of the CGST / SGCT Acl, 2017, without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice and Rule of law and consequently set said the Proceedings of the 1St Respondent in rejecting the claim of Transitional relief, as null and void.

¶16

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section 15'l 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 Proceedings of the^'1st respondent dated 28.02.2023, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, as otherwise, the Petitioner will e put to severe loss and hardship.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3 : SRI L VENKATESWAR RAO SPL. GP FOR GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Ms SAPNA REDDY

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHIIYAN

¶24

AND

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶26

WRIT PETITION No. 14820 of 2o23

¶27

ORDER: (Per the Hofl'ble the Chief Justice Ujjat Bhugan)

¶28

Heard Mr. Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. L.Venkateswar Rao, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for respondents No.1 and 3; and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶29

This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 28.O2.2023 passed by respondent No.1.

¶30

By the aforesaid order dated 28.02.2023, prayer of the petitioner for allowing transitional credit has been rejected under Rule l2l of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2Ol7 read with Sections 73 and 74 of tlle Centra-l Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the court to the show cause notice dated

)

I I I I

!......-

23.02.2023 whereby respondent No.1 granted three days time to the petitioner to submit the written objection, if any. He submits that on 24.02.2023 petitioner hacl sought for time till 10.03.2023 for filing written objection. When first respondent rejected the request of the petitioner for adjournment, petitioner hurriedly filed the written objection rvith whatever materia-ls that were available on 27.O2.2O23. In the impugned order, respondent No.1 has stated that as per show cause notice dated 24.02.2023, he had granted seven days time to the petitioner to filc written objection, if any, which is factually not correct. After on recording the objection filed by the petitioner 27.02.2023, respondent No.l rejected the claim of the petitioner for transitional credit vide the order dated 28,O2.2023 i.e., within a span of five days.

¶37

Without entering into the merit, we are of the view that the impugned order was passed very hastily. An adequate and reasonable opportunity ought to have been granted to the petitioner to file its comprehensivr: written

¶38

¶39

objection and thereafter to have provided an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶40

We therefore set aside the impugned order dated 28.02.2023 and remand the matter back to respondent No.1 for a fresh decision in accordance with law. It would be open to the petitioner to lile additional written objection, if any, within fifteen days from today, whereafter respondent No.1 shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and then pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶41

7 . Writ petition is accordingly allowed.

¶42

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶43

stand closed. However, there sha-ll be no order as to costs.

¶44

so/- K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT^REGISTFAR //TRUE^COPY// \l SECTION^OFFICER

¶45

¶46

The Assistant^{Commissionerof State Tax'} Sanathnagar^{Circle' HYderabad'} GST Range,^{lmbrahimPatnam,}

¶47

fhe^{Superintendent, lmbrahimpatnam} RangareddY,^HYderabad'

¶48

a . The Principal^{Secretary, Revenue (CT) Department'Stateof Telangana'} Telangana^{Secretariat, Hyderabad}

¶49

4 o;; ic i;^{sir. sHnrkJEELANI BASHA'Advocate'[oPUCl} . Two CCs to^{Gp FoR ldH,ffrrreiCrnL TAX,HighCourt for the State of} Telangana^{at HYderabad [OUT]}

¶50

o o;; ic i;^{rv. snpr.rnREDDY,Advocate'[oPuc]} 7. Two CD^CoPies

..y

SB GJP

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1510612023

ORDER

WP.No.14820 of 2023

1
o*
<br>,I
3 r1 JU\ Nil I
,.>'
r, i: r.i

¶59

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶60

9?
r..<br>*

M/s.Ta Infra Projects Limited, v. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Ta Infra Projects Limited, 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

M.Narasimha Reddy and Co. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax-Vi

Ravuri Raghuram Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

Three Seasons Logistics Private Limited. Vs The Union of India

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-4 Vs Sri. Krishna Chigullapally

M/s R.R. Projects Vs The Superintendent

Macharla Mohan Goud Vs Sri Shashi Bhushan Kumar, I.A.S.