Madineni Srinivas Vs State of Telangana (Telangana High Court)
In a concise yet important ruling, the Telangana High Court addressed a procedural lapse in GST adjudication involving royalty payments under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM). Instead of delving into the merits, the Court emphasized the availability of statutory rectification under Section 161 of the CGST/TGST Act, reinforcing a practical compliance pathway for taxpayers.
Case Background
- The petitioner, Madineni Srinivas, challenged an order passed under Section 74 of the CGST/TGST Act, 2017.
- The dispute related to GST liability on royalty payments under RCM for FY 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23.
- The petitioner argued that:
- GST had already been fully paid on such royalty.
- Supporting documents, including a sub-license agreement dated 20.10.2019, were submitted during adjudication.
- However, the Assessing Officer failed to consider these փաստs while passing the order (Form GST DRC-07 dated 06.10.2025).
Key Legal Issue
Whether a writ petition is maintainable when the grievance arises from an apparent omission by the adjudicating authority, and a statutory remedy of rectification under Section 161 is available.
Arguments Presented
Petitioner
- The demand order suffers from a clear factual error—non-consideration of already paid GST.
- This constitutes an error apparent on record.
- Requested either:
1. Remand of the matter, or
2. Liberty to seek rectification under Section 161.
Respondent (Department)
Paid content
Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.
