Case Law Details
Poddaturi Rajeshwar Vs Assistant Commissioner (Enforcement) (Telangana High Court)
In Poddaturi Rajeshwar Vs Assistant Commissioner (Enforcement), the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an unsigned order dated 10.07.2023 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act for the assessment year 2017-18, along with subsequent attachment proceedings in DRC-01 dated 29.09.2023. The proceedings involved a demand of Rs.19,32,467.36 and penalties of Rs.96,623/- each under CGST and SGST.
Read SC Judgment in this case: SC Upholds HC Refusal to Entertain Delayed GST Writ Petition Citing Alternative Remedy
The petitioner argued that the impugned order and recovery proceedings were illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and violative of principles of natural justice and constitutional protections under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 265, and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also submitted that banks were threatening attachment of bank accounts for recovery and sought permission to approach the appellate authority against the order dated 10.07.2023.
The Revenue opposed the writ petition, contending that it had been filed more than two and a half years after the impugned order was passed. It was argued that the petition was barred by the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited.
After considering the submissions, the High Court held that it was not inclined to entertain the writ petition in view of the ratio in Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited. The Court observed that it was open to the petitioner to approach the statutory authority, if permissible in law, against the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed without costs, and pending miscellaneous applications were closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Sri V. Ganesh Bhujangarao, learned counsel appears for petitioner.
Sri K. Sai Akarsh, learned Assistant Government Pleader appears for Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Government Pleader for State Tax, for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5.
Sri Syed Siddigha, learned counsel appears for Sri G. Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
2. The instant Writ Petition has been preferred with the following prayer:
“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the Petitioner prays that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the unsigned impugned Order dated 10.07.2023 passed under section 73 of GST Act 2017 for the assessment year 2017-18 by the 18t Respondent and subsequently attachment proceedings passed in DRC-01 penalty dated 29.09.2023 levying demand of Rs.19,32,467.36 with penalty of Rs.96,623/- CGST and Rs.96,623/- SGST as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, without jurisdiction and authority of law, not maintainable in the eye of law, in not following the principles of natural, violative of articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bankers have been threatening to attach the bank accounts for proposed recovery. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be allowed to approach the appellate authority to challenge the order dated 10.07.2023.
4. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the instant Writ Petition has been filed more than 21/2 years after passing of the impugned order. The prayer in this Writ Petition is hit by the ratio rendered by the Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited1. Therefore, the case may not be entertained.
5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to entertain the instant Writ petition assailing the impugned order dated 10.07.2023 in view of the ratio in Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (supra). It is up to the petitioner to approach the statutory authority if permissible in law against the impugned order.
The instant Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Note:
1 (2020) 19 SCC 681
Author Bio
