AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. S.Suri Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner through video conference, Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 8 and Mr. Mohammed Hussain, learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, appearing for respondent No.7.
The writ petition has been preferred with the following prayer:
“For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus setting aside the impugned demand of tax, interest and penalty arising in pursuance of the assessment order passed by the second respondent in attachment to the Form GST DRC-07, dated 16.03.2026, in ARN No.AD360325007779T, read with summary of the Order in Form GST DRC 07, dated 16.03.2026, in Ref No.ZD360326037031U, passed under Section 74 of the TGST Act 2017/CGST Act 2017, for the tax period 2017-18, and direct the third to seventh respondents herein to remit the component of GST from 01.07.2017 to March 2018, arising in pursuance of the attachment to the Form GST DRC-07, dated 16.03.2026, in ARN No. AD360325007779T, read with summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 16.03.2026, in Ref No. ZD360326037031U, in respect of contracts executed by the petitioner to the third and seventh respondents herein in terms of G.O.Ms.No.67 Irrigation and CAD (Reforms) Department dated 04.07.2018, or to pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has repeatedly submitted that the non-reimbursement of the differential rate of tax upon introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime in an existing contract under the Value Added Tax (VAT) regime has caused unnecessary imposition of tax liability upon the petitioner in an adjudication proceeding relatable to the financial year 2017-18 under Section 74 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the TGST Act/CGST Act'). Therefore, petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition challenging the adjudication order and the summary of the order in GST DRC-07 dated 16.03.2026 and also sought remittance of the component of GST for the period 01.07.2017 to March, 2018 covering the same period.
Learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax has pointed out to the findings and conclusion of the Assessing Authority in the impugned order and submitted that the contractual arrangement between the tax payer and the Government Department regarding reimbursement of GST are outside the purview of the GST adjudication and cannot affect the statutory liability under the TGST Act/CGST Act. He submits that the petitioner should avail the remedy of appeal instead of raising its grievance against the adjudication order with the additional prayer for reimbursement of the component of GST from the respondent Department, which may be a separate and independent cause of action.
After some arguments, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition in order to pursue the appellate remedy against the order-in-original dated 16.03.2026 with statutory pre-deposit and delay condonation application, if required. He also seeks liberty to pursue the cause of action relating to non-reimbursement of differential rate of tax under the GST regime for the aforesaid period in an independent proceeding.
Both the liberties, as prayed for, are allowed.
The petitioner may prefer an appeal within a period of two weeks with statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application. The petitioner may take all such grounds of law and facts in the memo of appeal as are available to it. Needless to say, the appellate authority would consider the question of delay taking into account the aforesaid facts and circumstances and if it is satisfied on the point of delay, proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.