Allowed

Nektar Therapeutics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Telangana HC23 Jun 2023WP/15871/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice issued by an Assistant Commissioner. The court set aside the notice on the ground that the Assistant Commissioner was not the proper officer, requiring consultation before issuing a fresh notice with pre-show cause notice consultation. No order as to costs was passed.

What did the court decide?

The show cause notice dated 17.04.2023 was set aside. The Court directed the proper officer to consult the petitioner before issuing a fresh show cause notice.

Nektar Therapeutics (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹¹ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTIGE N. TUKARAMJI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 15871 OF 2023

¶9

Between:

¶10

Nektar Therapeutics (lndia) Pvt Ltd,^{Having its registered office at. 2nd Floor,} Shyam Arihant Plot No.1-8-304 to^{307/1Oand11PatigaddaRoad, Begumpet} HYderabad -5oo oo3

¶11

...PE.,.NER

¶12

AND

¶13

Union of lndia, Through Revenue Secretary,^{Ministryof Finance, NorthBlock} New Delhi -1 100 01

¶14

Goods and Service Tax Council, 5th^{Floor,Tower ll, Jeevan Bharti Building,} Janpath Road, Connaught Place,^{New Delhi-1 10001.}

¶15

Dedutv Commissioner of Central Tax, Circle^{Vlll, Audit-ll Commissionerate} Sahvi Yamuna Pride-Kritika^{Layout Madhapur,Hitech City, Hyderabad}

¶16

Assistant Commissioner of Central^{Tax, Circle Vlll, Audit-ll Commissionerate} Sanvi Yamuna Pride-Kritika Layout^{l\iladhapur, Hitech City, Hyderabad}

¶17

Assistant Commissioner of Central^{Tax, CentralExcise and Service Tax,} Medchal Division, Medchal Commissionerate,^{H. No. 8-2-7713-Adithya} Towers Sri Sai Enclave, Old^{Bowenpally Secunderabad}

¶18

6 Superintendent of Central^{Tax, Group -82, Circle-Vlll,DoorNo. 1-} 98i13120,21 Sanvi Yamuna^{Pride,Krithika Layout, Madhapur,HitechCity'} Hyderabad -500081

¶19

...RES,.NDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the^{Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue writ, order or Direction more^{particularlyin the nature of writ of} Certiorari^quashing the^{Show Cause notice dated 1710412023issued by} Respondent No. 5 and^{Final Audit Report dated 2711212022 issued by the} Respondent No. 4 being^{without jurisdiction and beyond the statutorytime and to} therefore retrospective^{in nature.or in alternative,read downthe NotificationNo.} o4l2o1g dated 30i09/2019^{as arbitrary being contrary to the recommendationof} GST council and^{violative of Article14 of constitution of lndia and issue any other} declare that the^{Notification No. 04/2019dated 30/09/2019 is onlyclarificatory and}

¶21

¶22

appropriate writ(s), cr)e (s) or direction(s) as may be ceerne j^.it zrnd proper by this Honourable CoLrrl

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶24

Petition under { ie,-'tion 151 CPC praying that in tho circur Stances stated in the affidavit filed in s - rport of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to stay all further proceedinr_t,; arising out of the lmpugned Slow llar.se Notice dated 17104120.23 issued lty R lspondent No. 5 and issue any other aJ. prcpriate writ(s), orde(s) or direction,ls) ar; may be deemed fit and proper kry this H,tnourable Court.

¶25

Counsel for the Petiti rner: SRI SANDEEP CHILANA, CC)UNSE L FOR SRI MOHD MUKHAIRUDDIN

¶26

Counsel for Responcl rnt No. 1: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶27

(Dy. SOLICITOR GENEFAL Otr lrNDrA)

¶28

Counsel for Respond rnt Nos. 2 to 6: SRI DOMINIC FERNAND:t:i

¶29

The Court made the ft lkrwing: ORDER

¶30

q;r

¶31

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BIIUYAN AND

¶32

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶33

WRIT PETITION No. 15871 of 2o23

¶34

ORDER: [.er the Ho 'bLe Lh(: ChPf JustLce Utel Bhtuen )

¶35

Heard Mr. Sandeep Chilana, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deput,v Solicitor General of India for respondent No. 1; and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 6.

¶36

Challenge made in this r,vrit petition is to the show cause notice No.O4 /2023-24 dated 17.04.2023 issued by respondent No.5 i.e., Asslstant Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise & Service Tax, Medchai Division, Medchal Commissionerate,

¶37

Though the challenge has been made on various grounds, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 6 fairly concedes to the contention advanced bv learned counsel

¶38

L- E

¶39

¶40

for tl'rc Pt:ti i,^,ner thaI respor-rdent^{No.51 (].Aslistallr-} Commissionr r. is not the^ploper officcr^{as t:lr.,r'ifLed llv} circular^{Nrl .} 1t05 12018-GST dated^{09.02 2Ct1€ issuedlrr'} thc Cen:ral^I ic,erd of Excise aud Customs^{tnas:r r,tch as tl-rc} proper officr: ,vould be Additional or^Joir t^{Corn rLis;stoner} of Cet'r trzrl l': .r.^'lheref,tre, he^{submitsthat the ;Lto-'r cautse} notrce nr a.r^I e set aside u'ith liberty^{to tht: resl'ondr:nts to} issue the sat rt- afresh b1, a proper officer.

¶41

ri. At thir stage, Iearned^{counselfol- t'he pel.itioncr} submits thtt -h,: shor'r'^{cause notice has been sslred fbr} recovell of elund earlier^{granted to the petit o rer'. The} reco\rer--' is^.r<;ught to be^{made on the} irour^{dth at thc} refund u,as rracle erroneously.^{He subnritstfrirt insofar} refund is cot c,:rned, claim^{of the petitionelwas erlfirlned by} the jurisdict,ttral Customs,^{Excise &.Service'I'ax Appellate} Tribunal^(C :tliTAT) u'hich^{order hasa ttain :<: f inality'} Therefo-e,^jr oicial discipline and^{proprielydr:rn:en<isthat} responi ent sliould be restrained from^{r-akin11stt:pstor} recover/ ol r- re refund granted.

¶42

Hat/ing heard learned counsel lor the parties, particularly the submission of learned counsel lor respondents No.2 to 6, we set aside the show cause notice dated 17.04.2023 making it clear that proper olficer shali hold consultation with the petitioner if he intends to issue fresh show cause notice i.e., pre show cause notice consultation. A11 contentions are kept open.

¶43

Writ petition is accordingly allowed

¶44

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶45

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

¶46

SD/- C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT.REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// LAD

¶47

SECTION OFFICER

¶48

To, 1. The Revenue Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Union of lndia, North Block New Delhi -1 100 01

¶49

The Goods and Service Tax Council, 5th Floor, Tower ll, Jeevan Bharti Building, Janpath Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi -1 10001.

¶50

The Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax, Circle Vlll, Audit-ll Commissionerate Sanvi Yamuna Pride-Kritika Layout Madhapur, Hitech City, Hyderabad

¶51

The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Circle Vlll, Audit-ll Commissionerate Sanvi Yamuna Pride-Kritika Layout Madhapur, Hitech City, Hyderabad

¶52

The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise and Service Tax Medchal Division, Medchal Commissionerate, H. No. 8-2-7713. Adithva Towers Sri Sai Enclave, Old Bowenpally Secunderabad

¶53

The Superintendent of Central Tax, Group -82, Circle -Vlll, Door No. 1- 98113120,21 Sanvi Yamuna Pride, Krithika Layout, Madhapur, Hitech City, Hyderabad -500081

¶54

One CC to Sri Mohd Mukhairuddin Advocate [OPUC]

¶55

One CC to Sii Gadi Praveen Kumar (Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA) Advocate [OPUC]

¶56

One CC to Sri Dominic Fernandes, Advocate(OPUC)

¶57

10.Two CD Copies IUBC \ cJP v4

¶58

I-.IIGH COURT

¶59

DATED: ?-310612023

¶60

2.,. ,\ t, 5'Ar^
o^
)
/,)
/ -',
J:
I
1[, JI]I 2$23
\1,
ri
t"
t ','"\t9)/
::I..._*r''
ORDER

¶61

WP.No.'f li8'11 of 2023

¶62

ALLOWING THE WIRIT PETITION

¶63

WITI{OL'T COSTS ',t^$--.'-' A4 r\c\

Nektar Therapeutics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nektar Therapeutics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amina Khatoon Vs The Union of India And 3 Others

M/S Bhongir Tyres (Mrf Exclusive Showroom) Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.S.Swapna Vs Telangana State Pollution Control Board

Ncc Limited (formerly Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited), Vs The State of Telangana

Ncc Limited (formerly Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited) Vs The State of Telangana

M/S Satyanarayana Sri Gopal Malani Vs Union of India