Allowed

V.S. Ferrous Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Telangana HC3 Oct 2023WP/7008/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of identical writ petitions challenging the rejection of cross-examination in GST show cause proceedings, relying on previous identical orders passed in cases 6866 and 6857 of 2021.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were disposed of by allowing them in identical terms as previous identical petitions, alongside the recalling of the impugned letter by the respondents.

V.S. Ferrous Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India — GST and Indirect Tax | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 7008 OF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

V.S. Ferrous Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Plot No.4B, Nasarjuna Hills, Punjagutta, Hyderabad. Telangana State. (Rep. by its Director, S heshagiri Rao lppugunta Rl/o. Hyderabad)

¶10

,..PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Union of lndia, Through Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, At North Block, New Delhi - 1 10001.

¶13

2 The Central Board of lndirect Taxes and Customs, At North Block, New Delhi - 1^'10001

¶14

3 The Additional /Joint Commissioner Central Tax, Hyderabad GST Commissionerate, GST Bhavan, LB Stadium Road, Hyderabad-500004.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 one in the nature of writ of mandamus, quashing the impugned letter dated 1010312021 in SCN.No 0712019-20-Adjn(GST)-JC-GST-flE, communicating the decision of the Respondent No-3 herein, of rejecting permission for cross-examination, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 19(t ) (g), 2O and 21 of the Constitution of lndia

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶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 stay the adjudication proceedings by Respondent No.3, in the showcause notice daled 1310412020, in SCN No.07/2019-20/JC-GST-AE, issued to the Petitioner herein, pending final disposal of the writ petition, by this Hon'ble court

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SRINIVAS CHATURVEDULA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A. RAMA KRISHNA REDDY (SC FOR CBEC) The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE T{ON'I]LI] SIII^{.IUSTICEP.SA\IKOSHY} ,,\ND

¶22

THE HON'I}LIi SRI^{JTIS'TICE T,AXMI N-\RAYANAALTSHETTY} WT{IT PETIl'ION^{No.7008of 2021}

¶23

QRDER:(per^{llon'bleSri luttreP-SA.VIKOSIIT'}

¶24

. When the mattcr is taken uP tir r hearine. todal', it^{has been} idcntical u'rit^{petitions i.e.,} inlormed by the Parties^thattwo

¶25

W.P.nos.6866 and^{6857 o1' 102 Ihas alrcacil bcen allowedand}

¶26

disposed ofvide^{ordel dated17 09.2011}

¶27

in vicrv ol' the^{thct that the idenricallrltltLcr has already been} disposed of b1'this^{Court, we alc inclined to disposc o1'thc present r'vrit}

¶28

petition also, in terms ol-^{tl'rc oldel passcd in \' P Nos'6866 and 6857}

¶29

of 2O2l decided^{on21 .09.2023 in identicalterms'}

¶30

As a seque[, miscellane^{or:s applicatiorrspcnding iI' anyin this writ}

¶31

petition, shall stand closed.^{No orderas 10 cosls}

¶32

SDT C.^PRAV EEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRA //TRUE^COPY// SECTI OFFICER

¶33

"lllltlH,}:fl:f]rifl :k""',+j::ff ::'"':i::ff I"JI-'J:il^ "' "^."'"

¶34

;^{g$gtgl'{nlfrttrS,}t*.t;;,J,:;;} dated 27^{0s203'passed bv this courtin} s"Jiig';rlr::TJ3r?T,%.1i:5l."iI:#"'',

BM GJP

((

i ,

,:t

HIGH COURT

DATED:0311012023

ORDER

WP.No.7008 of 2021

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶44

'. ..: S iAr!
/.
t) ?5 [iT 2m I
"',.1,
i_<br>

¶45

{"8t w- (\il,r

¶46

I I I

¶47

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND

¶48

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶49

W.P. Nos. 6457 and, 6866 of 2O2L

¶50

COMMON ORDER (per Ilctll e: Sr i .lrtsttt i, p.SAM KOSH)

¶51

Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned Senior Counsel for central Taxes appcaring for responclent Nos.2 ro 4 ln both the writ petitions.

¶52

The presen t vvrit pctitions have beer.i filed assailing the action on the part of respondcnt No.3 in rejecting the request of the petitioner vide order dated 10.03.202 I seeking to permit to cross examine the witnesses whose statements zrre referred to and relied upon in the show cause notice dated 3O. 12.2}lg issued against the petitioner.

¶53

This court, while entertaining the !\rrit petitions had granted interim orders in favour of the petitioner from proceeding further with the show cause rrotice dated 30. 12.2OIg.

¶54

4 Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had already entered appearance and had hled their counter affirlavit. In the said counter affrdavit, the respondents had taken a spccific stand, which is reproduced herein:

¶55

"6.2. lt is. submitted that, in view of the huge amount of revenue involved and undue detay in t.f,i.rg ,f- tfr. i^dj:1i::,:S"^{proceedings,rhermpugned} letrer dated 1O.O3.2O21, is recalled and the requesi fo"...o"" .*u_ir**t-., is considered, on case to case basis, b""i"g ;1;";;j;;;..

¶56

.==::+=sj.+-:jt--'+--,*i.

TI i I

I il

Ior thc arljudicalion proceedings. Thc stune is lntimnL.(1 to the petrlioDers vide letters dated 23.07.2O21".

¶61

However, liom the perusal of thc pleadings, we find tlt:rt lhe said order of tl'rc recalling of the letter dated 1O.03.2021 \as not p.lrt of the return and therefore, had instructed the r:ot-rnsel lbr tl're respondents to make available the said document clatecl 23.07.202 1.

¶62

Today, rvhcn the matter is taken up for hearing, learnccl counsel for the Department had produced the corresponde:rce daLed 23.O7.2O21 passe<I by the Additional Commissioner, r,[r,:rein, ir is stated that thc respondent authorities had recallccl the impugned office letter dated I O.03.202 1 which is under challcnge in rhe prescnI u,rit pctition.^.\rhile recalling the said orcler dated 1O.O3.202 l, thc authorities concerned, however, made an obsen.alion thaL tlle petitioner would be permitted to cross examine tl-re u,itnesscsHowever, the cross examination shall be on casc to case basis, basing on the relevance lbr adjudication proceedings.

¶63

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner only has an apprehension, that the said point which has bcen put by the respondents wl-rile passing the recall order dated 23.O7.2021 should not mean thzrt the respondents would arbitrarily dcny cross examination of the relevant witnesses whose statemenLs are referred to and relied upon in the show cause notice. It goes withoul saying that once when the Department has granted permission to. cross examine the relevant witnesses, the authorities are expec,'te(l to take a

¶64

I^{.r.r-.,a.,.i..} +:,+*.-:.1,--

!--::::'

I I I i I

I il

ti it

//:'

pragmatic view on the requcst of the petitioncr so iar as the cross examination is concerned. Nonetheless, thc 1retitioner also should not subject the witnesses by unnecessari\ cross cxamtnrng on irrelevan t lssues or in respect of matters u,hich atre not r-cflected in the statement of the said witnesses.

¶72

In view of the aforesaid obsen ations :rncl in the light of the order dated 23.O7.2021, the present u,rit petitlons stancls disposed of. The authorities concerned are direcled to ensure thal the show cause proceedings are recalred at the eariicst ancr tr.ie petrrronef arso should render all co-operation in the shori, cause proceecin.rgs ancl shall ensure that the cross examination is carriecl out at the earliest. No order as to costs.

¶73

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶74

closed.

¶75

P.SAM I(OSHY, J

¶76

27tt, September, 2023 Put

¶77

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J

V.S. Ferrous Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.S. Ferrous Enterprises 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Sunbeam Speciality Alloys Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St) Ltu and another

M/s.Mahasethu Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/s.Mahasethu Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

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

Srr Enterprises Vs The Additional Commissioner (Appeals-Ii)

Affluence Engineering and Enterprises Ltd, Vs Union of India and 02 Others