Allowed

Apple Tree Educational v. Commissioner of Central Tax

Telangana HC6 Oct 2023WP/27457/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order imposing service tax on an educational institution due to non-service of the personal hearing notice. The petition was disposed of, remitting the matter back to the respondents for fresh proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 08.03.2022 was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the respondent authority.

Apple Tree Educational Vs Commissioner of Central Tax — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸⁶ I

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SR] JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETW

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 27457 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Apple Tree Educational, Society Plot No. 199, Anjali Gardens, Puppalguda, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Manikonda, Beside Lanco Hilts, Hyderabad--S00 089.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Commissioner of Central Tax, Ranga Reddy GST Commissionerate, Posnett Bhavan, Tilak Road, Ram Kote, Hyderabad -500 001

¶12

2 Superintendent of Central Tax, 10-3-301 -303, 4th Floor, Serene Heights, Humayun Nagar, Maserb Tank, Hyderabad - 500 028.

¶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 a writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order-in-original No. 5412021-22Adjn(Commr)-ST dt. 08/03/2022 issued by the Respondent No.1 , and all subsequent and consequential actions, more particularly issuance of demand letter bearing C.No. lv/l6/Gehblrg/12IARCl2O22 dt. 0410912022 issued by the Respondent No. 2, as presumptuous, illegal, arbitrary, and passed against the principle of natural justice,

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶16

Petition under Section 151 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 the impugned Order-in-original No. 5412021-22Adjn(Commr)-ST dt. 08/03/2022 issued by the Respondent No. 1.

¶17

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to restrain the Respondents from collecting service tax of INR 4,14,88,480 (Rupees Four Crore Fourteen Lakh Eighty-Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty only) pursuant to Order-in-original No. 5412021-22-Adjn(Commr)-ST dt. 0810312022 issued by the Respondent No.1, and demand letter bearing C.No.lV/16/Gehblrg/12IARC/2022 dt. 04.O9.2022 issued by Respondent No. 2.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BASA CHANAKYA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES (SR. SC for CBIC) The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

7 I 1

¶22

THE }ION'BLIi SRI.IUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

¶23

AND

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JTISTICIi LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRI'I PE'I'II'ION.No. 27457 of 2023

¶25

ORQEB:/per flon'ble Sri .lustit't' P.SAM KOSHY)

¶26

Heard Mr.Chanakya Basa, leamed counsel tbr the petitioner and Mr.Dominic Femandis, lcalned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on rccord

¶27

The challenge in the prcscnt writ pctition is to thc' order dated 08.03.2022 passed by thc I'r lcspondent, tvherein l" respondent imposed service tax upon thc pctitioncr's cstablishrncnt

¶28

The primary contcntion ot' thc leamed counsel lbr the petitioner was that the notice lbr pe rsorral heirring- issucd has not becn served upon the petitioner and as suclr tlrc 1-rt-titioncr has not got the opportunity to explain or defend themsclvcs bclbrc thc authorily concemed. Moreover, it is the contention ol'thc lcarncd counscl tbr the petitioner that since the petitioner is au educationrl irtstitution. thc1, tall under the exempted category under Master Circular datcd 10.0(r.10 ll.

¶29

On the prcviot.r;^{(latc ()l'} hcarrng. this^(lourt directcd the leamed counsel lbr thc Dcpanlncn( r()^.eck instruct.ions Mr.l)onrinicf:ernandis,

¶30

¶31

learned Standing Counsel,^{enteredappearanceon behalf o[ respondent}

¶32

Nos.l and 2.

¶33

The bare perusal of the impugned^{order itself wouldreveal that in} paragraph No.5 of the impugned order,^{the1't respondent in the course of} passing ol the impugned order has^{very categorical terms submitted as} under:

¶34

The service provider had neither^{submitted repl;} to the show cause notice nor^{attended the personal} hearing. The personal hearing^{intintaticttt sctlt to th('} sen,ice provider was^{returnedundeliveredbv the} postal authorities. Hence, the adiudication^hasbeen taken up on the basis of data/documents^availahlcon record.

¶35

(r. Given the aforesaid admitted^{factual matrix, it is cvidentlyclear} that notice lor personal hearing^{whichhas been issued to thc petitioner} have been un-delivered on the^{petitioner and if the noticehavegone} un-delivered, there was no occasion^{for the petitionerto have submitted} their erplanation or tender their defence^{if any. ln view of thc same, we} arc inclined to set aside the impugned^{order dated 08.01.2022passedby} the I" respondent and the matter^{stands reruitted back to the ["} respondent.

¶36

Given the fact that this Court is setting aside the impugned order

¶37

only on the ground that notice for personal hearing earlier issued was not

¶38

served, it is ordered that the impugned order in original dated 08.03.2022 which has been set aside here, be treated as notice for personal hearing and the petitioners are directed to submit their reply to the said notice for personal hearing on or before 30.10.2023. Thereafter the ['t respondent is expected to proceed further in accordance with law and pass appropriate

¶39

order.

¶40

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, ilany, shalI stand

¶42

closed

¶43

SD/- T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶44

//TRUE COPY// SECTI FICER

¶45

To,

¶46

1 . Commissioner^{of Central Tax, Ranga ReddyG-S-T^Commissionerate'Posnett} E#van, i-il;k^{C;ad, fum Koie, Hvderabaq:sogq91}

¶47

2 5ffi #i;ili'6ic'entrar^{rii,'r ols ro t} 1o3i^jl Llgor'^{serene Heishts'}

¶48

3 BN33i?"YHi'dSTL"lilI-T',^:"ie6:#Ei.r,q 4 '^{il; & 6 Siii oortlrir.lcieCr'rAlioes(sR Sc ror cBlc)[oPUc]}

¶49

1. Two CD^CoPies BN GJP

Prq.

HIGH COURT

DATED:0611012023

ORDER

WP.No.27457 ot 2023

S T
C
' '),
I
I I ti ll0! ?l?] ir ll
<br>' :11 i. .' ..

¶56

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶57

@fn.r, z r\to^{',- l}

Apple Tree Educational v. Commissioner of Central Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Apple Tree Educational v. 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

Sri M. Ashok Kumar Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Sri M. Ashok Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

The Commissioner Vs M/s. Astrix Laboratories Ltd.

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs Koukuntla Padma and 6 Others

M/s. Pennar Industries Limited Vs Commercial Tax Officer

Koukuntla Padma Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation