Disposed

M/s.Sri Tanveer Ahmed Mohammed v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

Telangana HC12 Feb 2025WP/3791/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged an appellate order rejecting a customs appeal as time-barred without any personal hearing. The court found the absence of hearing vitiated by breach of natural justice, set aside the appellate order, and directed the appellate authority to hear the petitioner on condonation of delay and decide afresh.

What did the court decide?

Impugned appellate order dated 19.10.2023 set aside; petitioner to appear before appellate authority on 27.02.2025 for personal hearing and fresh decision; no costs.

M/s.Sri Tanveer Ahmed Mohammed Vs Assistant… — Customs and Excise | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³⁴⁴⁶¹

¶2

tN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH^{DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING^{CHIEFJUSTICE SUJOY PAUL} AND THE HONOURABLE SMT^{JUSTICERENUKAYARA}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO^{-.3791 0F 2025}

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. Sri Tanveer Ahmed^{Mohammed, 11-4-646/G/D/016'Flat No'616,Pent} ioJse O-Wings, Vijaya^{Hills,Hydera.bad- 500 004.Telangana' represented} by its Proprietor, Sri Tanveer^{Ahmed Mohammed.}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Assistant Commissioner of^{CentralTax, H.No.10-3-301-303' 2@} [199r' S"ieti" Heights, Humayun^{Nagar, Masab Tank, Hyderabad- 500 028'}

¶12

2 Commissioner of Customs^{and Central Exercise, Appeal- l, Hyderabad.} Commissionerate,^{7th Floor,GST Bhavan, L.B.Stadium Road, Basheerbagh,} Hyderabad - 500 004.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article²²⁶ of^{lhe constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavitfiled therewith, the High courtmay be} pleased to issue a writ or order or direction^{particularly one in the natureof writ} of Mandamus setting^{aside the impugnedorder passed by the second respondent} in Order-in-Appeal^{No.HYD-SWAX-HYC-APP-062-23-24(APP-1) dated} 1g.1o.2o23,inAppealNo.127t2o23-HYD(ST),whichhasbeenrejectedastime barred without issuance^{of any notice of hearing as vitiated against Principle of} Natural Justice, illegal,^{arbitrary,without authorityof law, without jurisdiction.}

¶15

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶16

Petition under section^{151 CPC praying thatin the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in^{supportof the petition, the High Court may be pleased} pending disposal of the writ Petition^{grant stay of all further proceedings arising} in prr.r"n"" of the^{impugned order passed by the second respondent in order-}

¶17

in-Appeal No.HYD-SVTAX-HYC-APP-062-23-24(APP-1)^{dated 19'10'2023'} tn Appeal No.1 27l2023-HYD(ST)

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI S. SURI BABU}

¶19

counsel for the^{Respondents:sRl DoMlNlcFERNANDES (SR. SC for cBlc)}

¶20

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶21

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF WSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HOIT'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUXA YARA

¶22

WRIT PETITI ON No.3791 of 2o.25

¶23

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

¶24

Sri S. Suri Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dominic Fernandes, Iearned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, for the respondents.

¶25

2 With the consent, finally heard.

¶26

The petitioner takes exception to the appellate order dated 79.7O.2O23 whereby his appeal has been rejected.

¶27

The principal argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appeal was heard by the appellate authority without affording any personal hearing to the petitioner. By taking this Court to page No.57 of the impugned appellate order, it is submitted that the appellate authority opined that the petitioner preferred the appeal on 25.02.2023 after expiry of seven months and therefore, the delay was not condonable. Had the petitioner given an opportunity of hearing, he would have been in a position to show that the said frnding is incorrect. The petitioner promptly fiied the appeal and the attention of this Court is drawn on the speed post receipts and the tracking record. It is urged that the impugned appellate order is passed without fo,owing the principles of natural justice. since the petitioner is in a position to show that

/,/

the frnding that the appeal was belatedly frled on^25.A7.2023is factually incorrect, the doctrine of useless^{forrnality< alnot be} pressed into service. The impugned appellate order may be set aside and the learned appellate authority may be directed to^hear the petitioner on the aspect of condonation of de1,ay and cn appeal and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

¶32

Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC supported the impugned appellate order on the basis of findings given therein

¶33

6 We frnd substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the principles of natural^justi:e ought to have been followed in a case of this nature. If oppotunity c,f hear-ing would have been provided to the petitioner, he could have! made endeavour to apprise the authority that there is either no delay or delay is condonable. Without affording said opportrrnity, the impugned appellate order is passed which cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.

¶34

7 Resultantly, the impugned appellate order dated 19.10.2023 is set aside. The petitioner shall appear before the appellate authority on 27.02.2025 at 11:30 A.M. and for this purpose no separate notice will be required to be issur:d to the petitioner. The appellate authority shall give oppor tunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh order in accordamce with law.

The Writ Petition stands disposed of without^expressing

¶39

any opinion on the merits of^{the case. No costs.}

¶40

Interlocutory applications, if^{any pending, shall also}

¶41

stand closed.

¶42

I(ARJUNA^RAO SD/.S.^MALLI fuf nectsrnan ASSTST

¶43

//TRUE^COPY/, S CTION^OFFICER

¶44

To,lffi iffi iry'q'$trH,t+,gn#if;,lli+ii'"" l H'#il^{gfliil3#;ftls+PH$'^YsEtia?'sStorce q toPucl} 5. Two^{CD CoPles} BN BS

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210212025

ORDER

i,e +iA16
(
2
t;ll :-.' ? E F:i 2f,25
, -,
.',. ,|i,,
.r^:,.,--
\l

¶49

WP.No.3791 of 2025

¶50

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

M/s.Sri Tanveer Ahmed Mohammed v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Sri Tanveer Ahmed Mohammed 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

Abhipraay Welfare Society Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs Sri Umesh Kumar

M. Naga Prudwi Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

Jahangir Shareef Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Abdul Sattar Vs The State of Telangana

The Secretary to Government Vs B Ram Mohan