Dismissed

M/s. Nichino Chemical India Private Limited v. Union of India

Telangana HC27 Jan 2025WP/35295/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner withdrew the writ petition challenging GST recovery orders but sought protection against dismissal due to delay if an appeal was filed. Court dismissed petition as withdrawn but observed that the appellate authority must decide pending appeals on merits without treating procedural delay as a ground for rejection.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn; observation made that future appeals decided on merits without delay bar.

M/s. Nichino Chemical India Private Limited Vs Union… — GST and Indirect Tax | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³⁴⁴⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

¶6

WRIT PETITIO NN O: 35295 OF 2024

¶7

Betwee n

¶8

M/s. Nichino Chemicat lndia private Li1r-iledr plot NO.60 and 61, lDA, pasha I \vvrve mylaram, Sanoareddv Telangana - SO23O.. Repiesented Oy O. ffrrriiil Reddy Aged.42years'S/o. r<ris"nna neOOvlvvI

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Union of lndia. Reo bv its Secretary, I\4inrstry of Finance, Department of Revenue. Norrh Bioc(, Centrat Seiretari;i. fu;* D;Ihi-_ 110 oo1

¶12

2 Central Board of lndirect Taxes and Customs. Rep by its Chairman, Mrnistry of Finance, Department of Revenue, ruortn Btock,"ceiriiir s"ir"irii"i,'r.r.*' Delhi -^'l 10 001

¶13

3 The. Princip-al commissioner of centrar rax, centrar Excise and service Tax, IMedchal GST Commissionerate, tiyUeraUal.^{- - - -.''}

¶14

4 Il9 Pepgt_y/Assistant^{Commissioner of} Central Tax, Sangareddy CGST Matrusri Nagar, D.ivision, I/edchat I,4iyapur, CGST Commissionerate, Hyderabad_ SOOOAS. irtot^{-' '-} Nii. 5Ia:SsR tft.rdu,'^--

¶15

5 The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Circle_Vll, Audit - ll Commrssionerate, Door No 1-9g/B/20,2f , Srn"i Varrna pride, Krithika Layout, Madhapur, Hitech City, Hyderabail-soOOafl^"-'

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

-Petition 9"d91,.11,.919 ??9-gllgglstitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court inJ! ue pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the , a) action of 4thRespondent in issuing bunched up orderln-original No.1 26r2o24-25-csr-AD3N-scRDrv DrN. 20240856ye0 oooTo2t 46 dated 26.08.2024 arong with subsequent corrigendum to order-rn-originar vide

¶18

DlN. 20240856YQ0000823648 dated^{29.08.2024for bunched up yearsfrom 2019-} 20,2020-21 and 2021-22 and consequential^{effectual orders in FORM GST DRC-} 07 vide Ref No. 2D360924O149907^{dated 14.09.2024forthe period April2020-} March 202'1 issued by the 4th^{Respondentas being illegal, non-est in law,} arbitrary, violative^{of principlesof naturaljustice and consequentlyto quashthe} same, b) and^{further pass}

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to} suspend the effectual summary of^{order in FORM GSTDRC-07 vide Ref No.} 2D3609240149907 dated^{14.O9.2024forthe periodApril2020-lr/arch 2021under} Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017^{issuedby the 4thRespondent pending the} disposal of the^{writ petition}

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI^{RAJA SHEKAR RAO SALVAJI}

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI GADI^{PRAVEEN KUMAR} Dy. SOLICITOR GEN. OF INDIA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5: SRI^{DOMINIC FERNANDES,} SC FOR CBIC

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL

¶26

AND

¶27

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

¶28

(

¶29

II/RIT PETITION No.35295 of 2024

¶30

ORDER (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog paul)

¶31

Sri Salvaji Raja Shekar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing the matter for some time, seeks to withdraw this Writ Petition and prays for a direction that if an appeal is preferred by the petitioner before the appellate authority against the impugned order within three weeks, the same may be heard on merits.

¶32

Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, for respondent Nos.2 to 5, has no objection.

¶33

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, in the interest of justice, it is observed that if the appeal is preferred before the appellate authorit5r against the impugned order within twenty one days from today, the said authorit5r shall decide the appeal on merits and the same shall not be thrown overboard on the ground of delay. No order as to costs.

¶34

¶35

¶36

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shali stand closed.

¶37

SD/. K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' sful]bi6-rrrcen 1, t _-..----7-^/

¶38

o, 1. 9n"^{CC to Sri RajaShekar Rao Satvaji,Advocate} tOpUCl 2. One CC to Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar Dy.- Solicitor gen. Of lnbia tOpUCl 3. One CC to Sri Dominic Fernandes, SC for CBIC[dPUC] 4. Two CD Copies TJ GJP @)

\ {

HIGH COURT

DATED:2710112025

ORDER

WP.No.35295 of 2024

1 HE sIA 16r
c z
t) 1 0 rrB 2[25 o
*
aJt SPA]'-

¶46

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN

¶47

WITHOUT COSTS

M/s. Nichino Chemical India Private Limited v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Nichino Chemical India Private Limited v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms. Mounika Chintala Vs The Income Tax Officer

Mr. Nithin Kumar Chinthala Vs The Income Tax Officer

Dr.Buggaveedi Prathyusha Vs State of Telangana