KETAN CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED v. THE UNION OF INDIA

1

APHC010384612024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3488]

TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

WRIT PETITION NO: 19695/2024 Between:

Ketan Constructions Limited ...PETITIONER

AND

The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. D S SIVADARSHAN

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

2.

The Court made the following order:

Smt. Santhi Chandra, learned Senior Standing Counsel takes notice on the respondents 3 & 4 and seeks time to file counter after obtaining instructions.

The case of the petitioner is that he had declared that the rate of tax payable by him is 12% and had paid the tax declared by him. However, the respondent authorities have taken the view that the tax payable is 18% and that there was willful suppression by the petitioner, requiring a notice, under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, [for short "the CGST Act, 2017"]. It is the contention of the petitioner that limitation available under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 had expired and the respondent authorities have invoked Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, though such invocation is not

2

permissible, for the purposes of bringing the proceedings within the limitation set out under the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the rate of tax payable by the petitioner is 12% only and not 18% in any event. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uniworth Textiles Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur¹and on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Co. Vs. CCE ²to contend that the jurisdictional facts for assuming jurisdiction, namely willful suppression of fact, is not made out in the show-cause notice.

Smt. Santhi Chandra, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 3 & 4 submits that the Writ Petition has been filed against a show-cause notice and the objections raised before this Court could very well be raised before the assessing authority. She further submits that the Judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not relevant in as much as they relate to the provisions of the Central Excise Act and the language in the said Act is different from the language in the CGST Act, 2017. Post on 30.09.2024.

In the circumstances, there shall be a stay of all further proceedings in relation to the impugned show-cause notice dated 06.08.2024, for a period of six (6) weeks.

________________________

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

______________

HARINATH.N, J.

BSM