Dismissed

M/s. Sri Sai Balaji Ginning and Oil Mill v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

Telangana HC6 Sept 2023WP/24794/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order by Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax as illegal and revenue neutral under Article 226. Bench held petition barred by limitation due to failure to exhaust statutory appeal remedies within time.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

M/s. Sri Sai Balaji Ginning and Oil Mill Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO IHOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 24794 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. Sri Sai Balaji Ginning and Oil \Ail, 741lEE, Tallampadu village,' Khammam507170, Telangana. Rep. by its Partner P. Venkat Reddy

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1, Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Khammam GST Division, H.No. 1513-154, Sthapathi Vijaya Ragha Towers, Bank Colony, Khamrnam-507002

¶12

Union of lndia, represented by The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, No.136-A, North Block, New Delhi.

¶13

Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, C.T. Complex, OPP. Gandhi Bhvan, Nampalli, Hyderabad-500001

¶14

..RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of lhe 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 the action of the 1st Respondent in passing the impugned order dated 30.1 .2023 as illegal and unauthorized and in addition is a revenue neutral exercise and consequently set aside the same.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶17

Petition under Section^'l 51 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support,of the^petition, the High Court may be^{pleased to} grant stay of collection of the disputed CGST of Rs.30,04,444 and TGST of

¶18

3.-

¶19

Rs.30,04,444 and CGST penalty of Rs.30,04,44,1 anc TGST^penalty of Rs.30,04,444 and alrplicable interest under Section 50 of the GST Act and^pass

¶20

Counsel for the Pet tioner : SRI M.RAMACHANDRA M URTF Y

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : DOMINIC FERNAI\IDES

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI GADI PRAVET:N KUM,\R, SC FOR MINISTRY OF FINANCE

¶23

Counsel for the Res oondent No.3 : GP FOR COMMERCIAL flX

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶27

W.P.No.24794 of 2023

¶28

ORDER:er Hon'ble Sn Jusfice P.SAM KOSHY)

¶29

Thc instant writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 30.O1.2023, passed by the respondent No. 1/Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, vide Orderin-Original N o.O3 I 2022-2023-Adjn-GST.

¶30

Heard Sri M. Ramachandra Murthy, learned counsel lor the petitioner. Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondcnt No.2 and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for respondent No.3.

¶31

From plain reading of the pleadings itself, the petitioner admits the fact that on 23.02.2023 he received a copy of the said impugned order. Yet, the instant writ pctition has been filed muctr bcyond the period ol limitation i.e. otherlr,ise ava.ilable to the petitioner in preferring a

¶32

¶33

¶34

statutory appeal belore the Appellatc Authority. Thc instant writ petition has becn filed on O5.O9.2C'23 i.:. af -er seven (7) months from passing ol the said in-rpuqned order.

¶35

Given the lact that the petitioner for the rr:asons best knorvn has not either zivailed the altt:rnat,vr: srtatutory remedy ava ilable to him, or has knocl<e C the <loor of the writ Court rromptly, we are not inclinecl to r,ntertain the writ petition at this belaterl stage. Thus, reserring the right ol the petiti(,ne r to avail the remedy availeLble t I hint under the statute.

¶36

Accord ngly, the present writ petitio 11 is ,lir;pc,sed of. There shall be no order as to costs

¶37

As a sequel, misr:ellaneorrs petitions. if arrl pr:nding,

¶38

shall stand closed.

¶39

SD/- P' Cll'^{NA(;ABHUSHAMBA} ASSISTT'NLREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// (N) SECTION OFFICER \ to' ', . ,n" Assistant⁽ ommiqsioner-of^Central -TaK^KhaII-t19:.: ll"lsion'^H'No15-13- 1 54, Sthapathi^t'iiu V'^{*"uini' f"ot''-eii' e" nx Colony'K h'I m marr- Ii07()02} 2. The secretarv,^{unron'3,'ifiiii','iiui,.irvoiFinaiice, No leri-lr,N'odhBlock, New} ?frIibonlri."i,^{ner of commercialraxes'c r. cornplex'cPP GandhiBhvan'} Namoalli. Hvder^?bad-500001 4 li;:' Lij' i; 3 Ri,rlnnnlrncHnr'r^{o RAI'4u Rr H Y, Ad voqqe [oPu () l} 5 EnE;6 i" Siii^{r)or',rirlic FERNANDES, Advocate lot'ucl} 6 one cc ro SRt^{GAD; pRAViL'friau1/Aa.io"prtv's.ri"itor3e,neralof lndia),High} 6orrtlo, ih"^{St, t" of Telanganaat Hyderabad IoPUU'} 7 Two CCs^{to the GP fot corrir-lluii,} <sup>Hign'court ior the Slate of Telanganaat Hvderabad. [OUT] B Tivo CD^CoPies. BSK GJ #/'

HIGH COURT

DATED:06109t2.023

ORDER

STArf o,i'
<br>'l [ 0[12m
\
$.-
C
f'l**
5 rl-

¶44

WP.No.24794 ctf 2023

¶45

DISPOSING C)F THE WRIT PETITIO}I WITHOUT COSTS

M/s. Sri Sai Balaji Ginning and Oil Mill v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Sri Sai Balaji Ginning and Oil Mill v. Assistant Commissioner of Central 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

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Kudupuganti Rama

Ali Asgar Junagadhwala Vs The Union of India

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation Vs Chitti Sujana @ Srujana Reddy @ Nirmala

M/s. Akhil Sai Cotton Traders Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

The Commissioner of Income Ta v Vs Shri Ghanshyam Pamnani

M/s.Divya Sai Pharmaceuticals Vs The Commercial Tax Officer and Another