HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
W.P.No.2299 of 2024
O R D E R: Vijay)
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Nyapathy
Heard Sri Anil Bezawada, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax
and Sri Y.V.Anil Kumar, Central Government Counsel for
respondent No.5
2. This writ petition is filed for the following relief:
‘..to issue a writ of Mandamus or any
other writ direction or order declaring the
Proceedings of the 1st respondent vide Order
in Original Ref.No.ZD371023006973K for FY
2021-22 and Ref.No. ZD3710230069988 for
FY 2022-
23 (April’22 to November’23)
(Annexure P-1), in confirming the demand of
Rs. 1,37,25,345/- Interest of Rs.16,33,664/-
and Penalty of Rs.13,72,535/- without
considering the tax liability payments made
by the Petitioner in the GSTR-3B returns for
the subsequent tax period is illegal,
arbitrary, without jurisdiction or authority of
law, unconstitutional, against to the
2
principles of natural justice and contrary to
various precedents laid down in the subject
matter and violative of Article 14, Article
265, 300A and Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India. Hence, the
proceedings of the 1st Respondent are liable
to be set aside to the extent aggrieved &
prayed for remand back of the case for fresh
adjudication.’
3. The Petitioner is a Proprietary registered under GST and
is doing business in Tobacco products, confectionery and
products of ITC etc. The Joint Commissioner (ST) Guntur-II
Division had authorized the Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Guntur-II to inspect the business premises of the petitioner and
accordingly, the premises of the petitioner was inspected on
30.12.2022. The Books of account produced by the tax payer
were examined and vide impugned proceedings dated
11.10.2023, the petitioner was held to be liable to pay an
amount of Rs.1,67,31,544/- which is inclusive of CGST, SGST
and CESS apart from penalty and interest for the period from
01.09.2021 to 31.12.2022.
4. The thesis writ affidavit runs into fifty pages wherein
raising various grounds with regard to the incorrectness of the
3
impugned order, but no convincing answer was forthcoming
from the counsel for the writ petitioner as to why the remedy of
statutory appeal provided under section 107 of the Central
Goods and Services Act, 2017
(for short ‘the CGST Act’) was not
availed by the petitioner.
5. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ
petition bypassing the remedy of appeal provided under section
107 of the CGST Act. The petitioner is at liberty to file an
appeal and raise all the grounds before the Appellate Authority.
As the petitioner claims that an amount of Rs. 92 lakhs was
paid in December, 2022 which is part of the amount demanded
under the impugned order and therefore the Appellate
Authority may examine this aspect for exemption of pre-
condition deposit of 10% of the amount for maintaining the
appeal. If the Appellate Authority is satisfied the fact that the
amount of Rs.92 lakhs paid by the petitioner is part of the
demanded amount, then the pre-condition deposit of 10% shall
not be insisted upon.
4
6. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed
of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if
any, shall stand closed.
__________________
G. NARENDAR, J
_____________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 31.01.2024
KLP