Allowed

M/s. Sri Durga Bhavani Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)

Telangana HC3 Apr 2025WP/9924/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST assessment order challenged as time-barred; show cause notice for tax period 2020-21 issued after the statutory deadline computed from the assessment date. Following an Andhra Pradesh High Court decision, the court set aside the Section 73 order and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Impugned assessment order dated 28.02.2025 set aside; writ petition allowed without costs; pending interlocutory applications closed.

M/s. Sri Durga Bhavani Enterprises Vs Assistant… — GST and Indirect Tax | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t^s446 I

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE^{THIRD DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTYFIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL} THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICE RENUKAYARA}

¶6

WRIT PETITI^{ON NO:99240F 2025}

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s.sriDurgaBhavaniEnterprises,(RepbyitsAuthorizedSiqnatorv)'H-No''rrrtbo6t scnoot' Hvderibad' Medchal8-8-4014. Dilkush^{Nasar, N;;; iV.} Malkajgiri Telangana^{-500 037}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Assistant Commissioner^{(StateTax), Basheerbagh-2 Circle' Abids Division'} Hyderabad

¶12

2.CommissionerofCommercialTaxes,C.T.Complex,opp.GandhiBhavan, NampallY, HYderabad-^50000'1

¶13

State of^{Telangana, (Rep. by Chief Secretary-and Special Chief Secretaryto} " il;;';;""t (FACii,'stdiilai Department, Secretariat' Hvderabad'

¶14

Union of lndia,^{(Rep. by its Secretary (Finance))' North Block' New Delhi-11 0} 001

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under^{Article226 of the Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith'theHighCourtmaybe ;i";;;;^{ioto issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriatewrit-or order..or} ii,""t; by setting aside the^{show cause notice dated30'11'2024and the} consequent^{assessmentorier dated28 'O2 '2025 issued by the 1} -Respondent under Section^{73 of the Central Goodsand Services Tax Act' 2017 and the} i;L;g;;"^{Goodsand Services Tax Act, 2017 lor the tax period 2o2o-21on} of being without^{jurisdiction, as being barredby limitation and contrary to} """or"rt the scheme ofthe^{CGSTAcl,2017'}

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed irr support^{of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to} grant interim stay of all further^{proceedings pursuant to the inrpugned Show} Cause Notice dated 30.11.2024^{and the consequent assessment orderdated} 28.02.2025 issued by the^{1st Respondentfor the tax period 20'20-21,pending} disposal of the writ Petition as othenrrrise^{the Petitionerwill be pu': to severeloss} and hard ship.^"

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI^{Y. SlRl REDDY}

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1to 3: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA,} SPL GP for State Tax

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.4: SRI B. MUKHERJEE REPRESENTINGFOR} SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING^{CHIEFJUSTICE SUJOY PAUL} AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE^RENUKAYARA

¶25

WRIT PE"flTION No.9924 of 2o25

¶26

ORDER (Per the Hon'ble^the Acting^{Chief Justice SujogPaul):}

¶27

Sri Y. Siri Reddy, learned^{cor.rnsel for the petitioner;} Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned^{Special GovernmentPleader for} State Tax, for respondent^{Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri B" Mukherjee,} learned counsel representing^{Sri Gadi PraveenKumar, learned} Deputy Solicitor General^{of India, for respondent No'4'}

¶28

With the consent,^{hnallY heard}

¶29

L,earned counsel for^{the petitioner submits that the} impugned show cause^{notice was issued beyondthe permissible} statutory limitation.^{The tax period is2O2O-2O21'The} impugned show^{cause notice was issuedon 3O'11'2024 and the} impugned assessment^{order was passedon 28'02'2025'A} conjoint reading of^{Section73(2\ and (10) of the CentralGoods} and Services Tax^{Act, 2Ol7 (for short, 'the Act'), made it} permissibie for the^{respondentsto issue the show cause notice} upto 28.1 1.2024^{whereas,in the present case, it was issuedon} 30.11.2024 and^{therefore,it is beyondthe statutoryperiod of} limitation.^{Reliance is placed on the judgmentof Andhra}

¶30

¶31

Pradesh High Court in M/s. The Cotton Corporation of India v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Auditf (FACl, State of Andhra Prad.esh, Union of Indial.

¶32

l,earned Special Government Pleader- for State Tax formally opprtsed the petition. However, he did not ,:lispute the facts regarding tax period, issuance of impugned s,how cause notice arrd dzLte of passing of impugned assessment order.

¶33

We find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petiti,rner that a combined reading of Sectiorr 73(21 and (10) of the Act permits the Department to i ssue s how cause notice upto three months prior to the passing of the ilssessment order. The assessment ordei was passed on 28.02',.2025 and therefore, thr: show cause notice could have been il;sued upto 28.77.2024. Whereas, in the instalt case, it was issued on 30.11.2024. Similar view was taken by the Andhr.,a pradesh High Court in M/s. The Cotton Corporation of India (supra). In view of the statutory provisions and interpretation by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, u,e find substantial fc,rce in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner t.hat the. impugned assessment order calnot sustain judicial scrutiny.

¶34

t zOZs 121 rVt:ez-andhra pradesh High court