Athkur Narsappa V. Union of India and Assistant Commissioner, Central Tax, Mahabubnagar

WP/12271/2023

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Athkur Ramakrishna against the Union of India and the Assistant Commissioner, Central Tax, challenging an order-in-original that confirmed a service tax demand and imposed penalties. The petitioner argued that the order was illegal, arbitrary, and violated constitutional rights and principles of natural justice, primarily based on disclosures from income tax returns, which he claimed were improperly used. The court found the order to be appealable under the Finance Act, 1994, and advised the petitioner to pursue the appellate route rather than through the writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 804143 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Finance Act, 1994, Central Excise Act, 1944
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GADI KUMAR; DOMINIC FERNANDES
• Assessee Lawyers: PARSA NAGESWAR RAO
• Keywords: Appealable order; Demand of interest; Imposition of penalty; Natural Justice; Service tax; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 73(1); 35F; 85(1); 85(1)

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENW EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN rHE HoNouRAeLe sAl{iusrlcE N.TuKARAMJI WRIT PETITI ON NO: 12271 0F 2023 [ 33{1 I S/o. Athkur Narsappa, Age. 43 Yeals, H.No 'l 1-69, Peddodi village, Maldakal mandal ...PETITIONER J 1 Between: Athkur Ramakrishna, occupation.Business, R/o Gadwal district- 5091 32 AND 1 UNION OF lNDIA, Rep by its Principal Secretary Finance Department New Delhi. 2. ihe Assistant Commissioner, Central tax, Srinivasa colony, C.G.S.T Division' Mahabubnagar ..RESP.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that rn the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring. the orders daled 25.11 .2022, passed in case No. V/16/ 86t2O2O- SCN/MBNR passed by Respondent No 2, is being illegal, arbitrary, violative of articles 14 and 21 of constitution of lndia and besides violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant lnterim Suspension of lmpugned order passed by 2nd respondent in Case No.C.No.V/16/86/2020-SCN MBNR Dated 25.11.2022. pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. PARSA ANANTH NAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: DOMINIC FERNANDES The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BIITIYAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE I{.TT'I(ARAIIJI Writ Petition No.l227L of 2ol23 ORDER: (Per th.e Hon'ble the ChielJushce Uial Bhugan) Heard Mr.Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.G.Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.1; arrd Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned standing counsel for respondent No.2. 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of tl:.e Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed legaliby and validiry of the order-in-original dated 25. I 1.2022 passed by the second respondent conhrming demand of service tax to the tune of Rs.7,23,366.00 under Section 73(l) of the Finance Act, 1994 for the assessment period 2015-16 and 2016-17, besides confirmation of demand of interest and imposition of penalty. 2 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits t.Ilat the impugned order has been passed following the disclosures made in the income tax returns of the petitioner which he says is not permissible in view of the letter dated 26.10.2021 of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. However, we find that the same ground was not raised before the second respondent. 4. Be that as it may, we find that the impugned order is an appealable one under Section 85(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 35F of Central Excise Act, L944. 5. If the appeal is preferred by the petitioner within a period of thirty (30) days from today, the same shall be considered by the appellate authorit5r in accordance with law. All the contentions are kept open. 6. With the above observations, writ petition 1S disposed of. l Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. SD/-N.CHANDRA SEKHAR ASSISTANT GISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI OFFICER { To, BS 5 KKS 1 2 3 4 The Principal Secretary' UNION OF INDIA' Finance Department New Delhi The Assistant Co'n.,rson\",IdLni''r ii*' brinivasa colirny' C G S T Division' I ilahabubnaqar. i5;l' tci;\"B\"C i PAR sA AN ANr H NAG ESWAR RAo.Ad vocate IoP u cl 5.# 6E iX sii cnbi pnnvEen xur\"rin ov- Soltdtron GENERAL oF INDIA IOPUC] , bn! c[io-oorrlll NIC FERNAN DES [oPUc] Two CD CoPies Ponq. HIGH COURT DATED:2810412023 ORDER WP.No.12271 of 2023 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS q ,A ( '9 1 s i.q;.. [5,','iirlj ,j "