Case Law Details
Prashanth Kumar Poddaturi Vs State of Telangana (Supreme Court of India)
In Prashanth Kumar Poddaturi Vs State of Telangana, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed against the order of the Telangana High Court concerning a GST assessment dispute and recovery proceedings. The Supreme Court observed that, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and examining the materials available on record, it did not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed, and pending applications, if any, were disposed of.
Read HC Judgment in this case: Telangana HC Dismisses GST Writ Petition for Delay in Challenging Assessment Order
The matter arose from a writ petition filed before the Telangana High Court challenging an unsigned order dated 10.07.2023 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017 for the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner also challenged attachment proceedings initiated through DRC-01 dated 29.09.2023, under which a demand of Rs.19,32,467.36 and penalties of Rs.96,623/- each under CGST and SGST were levied.
Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that the impugned order and recovery proceedings were illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without jurisdiction, and violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 265, and 300-A of the Constitution of India. It was further submitted that bankers were threatening to attach the petitioner’s bank accounts for recovery, and permission was sought to approach the appellate authority to challenge the order dated 10.07.2023.
The Revenue opposed the writ petition on the ground that it had been filed more than two and a half years after the passing of the impugned order. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, contending that the writ petition was not maintainable.
After considering the submissions, the Telangana High Court declined to entertain the writ petition in view of the ratio laid down in Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited. The High Court observed that it was open to the petitioner to approach the statutory authority, if permissible in law, against the impugned order. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed without costs, and pending miscellaneous applications were closed.
The Supreme Court subsequently upheld the High Court’s order and declined to interfere with the dismissal of the writ petition.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and having gone through the materials available on record, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.
2. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Author Bio
