Krg Ispat Vs The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Krg Ispat Vs The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Unilateral blocking of the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger disapproved and set aside; writ petition disposed of in terms of the order in W.P. No. 10390 of 2024 and batch (26.06.2024); liberty reserved to respondents to proceed in accordance with law; no costs; pending miscellaneous petitions (including IA No. 1 of 2025) directed to stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' unilateral blocking of the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger / Input Tax Credit of Rs 44,09,279/- without show cause notice was illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice (ground of the Article 226 petition). +1 more

Court's answer

In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties during hearing, the action of the respondents in unilaterally blocking the Electronic Credit Ledger of the petitioner is disapproved and set aside.

Ratio / Principle

Since the point is covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 10390 of 2024 and batch decided on 26.06.2024, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the said order.

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law; the writ petition is disposed of with no costs.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Telangana High Court (Original Jurisdiction), W.P. No. 9268 of 2025; Bench: Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul (author, per his Lordship's order) with Justice Renu Kayara; decided 15-04-2025. The petitioner (identity illegible in the OCR source) filed an Article 226 petition challenging the respondents' order dated 11-02-2025 unilaterally blocking its Electronic Credit Ledger / Input Tax Credit of Rs 44,09,279/- without show cause notice, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of natural justice. At hearing, counsel for the petitioner (Sri Nyshadham Chandra Sekhar) and the Special Government Pleader for State Tax (Sri Swaroop Oorilla) jointly submitted that the point was covered by this Court's order in W.P. No. 10390 of 2024 and batch, decided 26.06.2024, and that the petition may be disposed of in terms thereof. By consensus, the Court disapproved and set aside the respondents' action of unilaterally blocking the Electronic Credit Ledger, disposed of the writ petition in terms of the said earlier order, reserved liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, made no costs order, and directed pending miscellaneous petitions to stand closed. Treatment: order in W.P. No. 10390 of 2024 (batch) followed.

134461

HIGH^{couRr .?+} I?EDEIAIiS:l'Tnoo tsp"cili^{diiginil Jurisdiction)}

TUESDAY,THE^{FIFTEENTH DAY OF_APRIL} '^{'"ii,"c;iilousnr'ro} AND^rwENrYFlvE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE^{THE ACTING_CHIEFJUSTICE SUJOY PAUL} THE HoNouRA"'^{t#'o"TlcERENUKAYARA}

WRIT PETI Tlo^NNO:9268 oF 2025

Between:'**"[[E'i;,irk:i41il:#"x"'l^i]i,atTrs:,.{iti*rul{::,'*sfl 58/38,^{Fatehnagar' Hyoerauau - !,,vv v rv --}

...PETITIONER

AND Hvderabad^Rurar

'^{Ii;.fl',iltlt'":3iil*::i'""ffi:f,?:''l?#lb*,'nasarcircre'}

,lJ;fg?Jj,1"i1b'3lii533fi "S8:?$:lif Sil[181'-iT8l3ry'Revenue

...RESPONDENTS

Petition^{under Article226 of the.Con:ll'-T"of lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{stateoin iie ?ini'"it filed' therewith'' tne Higl'r court maybe} i'ir,1,l{d[t;;fl,trtlgt..""#iltr{,l;l,"l H,ri'i,:r.,-t+lHffi^{ltt+,qffi .fl#rdl,ffi} iroav"rwithouttn"'"o"llg'-ui'oi.'causenotiqe"t"oiJ'illlgal'arbitraryand in vioLtion^{of principresIi'i''"}"'rl'"i'""'fa::f;;i;:tYiSi"ltJ:J?'Jfii:JX 'H]iiisr,iji:;ilil",nx;,T,?t&:!?,]:-ie;ro;:;#;';usnemaioa'led 11-o2-2o25to^{tne petitJi'JJ;; ;ffik1h" lnpuirax credit of the Petitionerto} the tune^{of Rs 44,09,2791}

.lA NO:10F 202s

.. Petition undt-,r Sec :r,^e 3.rri9 a vit ri i ; i;- :,,, #l iil",Lf ;fi LI": ll3, liln.| "":f i il : l; ffiT :"XEi,l ,:.,,$iff l:r*:=,"frtit,t:",j,',;,ffii,,ffi l,nd

Counset for the petitioner: SRl. NySHADHAM CHANDRA SEKHAR [:tHiJ forrthe ResFondents: sRt swARoop ooRtLLA Speciat Govr pteader

The Court made the following: ORDER

I

1

1 l

THE^{HON'BLE THE ACTING CIIIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL}

AND

THE^{HON,BLE SMT' JUSTICE RENUI(AYARA}

PETITIo^{NNo.9268of 2025}

ER:^{(Perthe Hon'bte the Acting Chief'Iustrce Sujog Paul)} o learned^{counsel for the} Sri^{Nyshadham Cha-ndrasekhar'} petitioner^{and Sri SwarooPOorilla, learnedSpecialGovernment} Pleader^{for State Tax aPpears for the resPondents'} the Parties'^{duringthe courseof} 2. lrarned^{counsel for} since^{the ElectronicCredit Ledger of} hearing,^{fairlY submit that} ' Ples^{of natural} out^{following the Prrncrr} the Petitioner^{is blocked with} covered^{bY the orderPassed bY this} justrce,^the Point^{is squarelY} f 2024^{and batch' decided on} Court^{inW'P'No'10390o} be disPosed^of 26.06.2024.^The petition may in terms^{of the said order} 3. In^{view of the consensusarrived at, the action of the} respondents^{in unilaterallyblocking the Electronic CreditLedger} of the^{petitioner is disapprovedand set aside'}

2

Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of, by reserving Iiberty to the respondents to proceed against th ,:) petitioner, rn accordance vr.ith law. No costs.

Miscella,r:,us petitions pending, if any, shall sta_rrd closed

SD/. ISTALiuYtld"HnH' //TRUE COPYII

To,

SECTION OFFICER

1

Jll,',.fl.;,3:3::9,ffi l.,i:"ff :ffi:?f[%t*"lanasar circre, Hyd erabad Rurar

2 lliJr.i?:'fi ?!:ii,i,l3!iti}S";ffi Jffgy,",,,raxDepartmenr),secretariat,

One CC to SRt. NYSHADHAM CHANDRA SEKHAR Advocate lOpUCl

Two CCs to SpECIA r;l;;s;;,'""i,iri"J;b.3i3,rfirArE^{rAX'Hish court ror} the State or

a*o CD Copies

LS ^^3. T

HIGH COUR-r

DATED:1 5104t2025

ORDER

( o RTHEs I,r ,(.
a
rn
206
?, .iy 0i tily
I
sl^r,:,. -- '

WP.No.9268 of 2O2S

DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

a,4('l>
&.,