S.P.Y. AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS Union Of India

The hearing began with Sri Dr. M.V.K. Moorthy, representing Sri P. Rosi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, addressing the court. He was followed by Sri N. Harinath, the learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for respondent No. 1, and Sri S.V.S. Prasada Rao, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

The matter pertained to a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking specific relief in the form of a Writ of Certiorari. The petitioner aimed to challenge several proceedings: firstly, the order dated 29th July 2021 issued by the Additional Commissioner of CT (Appeals), Guntur, in Appeal No. TTD-GST-000-APP-008-21-22/Appeal No. 02/2020-21e(T) GST; secondly, the assessment proceedings in GSTR Asmt-13 under No. 03/2020 dated 13th August 2020; thirdly, a communication dated 27th August 2020 in the form of Corrigendum-cum-Addendum; and fourthly, an order of rectification dated 12th November 2020 issued under Section 161 of the CGST Act.

The petitioner argued that these actions were erroneous and required judicial review. Sri Dr. M.V.K. Moorthy, in his submission, highlighted procedural irregularities, substantive errors in assessment, and violations of statutory provisions in the aforementioned orders and communications.

Following the petitioner’s arguments, Sri N. Harinath, on behalf of respondent No. 1, defended the actions of the Additional Commissioner and contended that the impugned orders were legally sound and based on factual and legal assessments.

Sri S.V.S. Prasada Rao, representing respondent Nos. 2 to 4, supported the submissions made by the Assistant Solicitor General and further argued that the impugned proceedings were conducted in accordance with the provisions of the law and after due consideration of facts.

The hearing concluded with the court reserving its judgment on the matter, pending a comprehensive review of all submissions and documents presented by both parties.

petitioner received a corrigendum-cum-addendum followed by an order of rectification dated 12.11.2020 under Section 161 of the CGST Act. Dissatisfied with these actions, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari. The petition was represented by Sri Dr. M.V.K. Moorthy, Senior Counsel, with Sri P. Rosi Reddy as the learned counsel.

The case revolves around a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, engaged in manufacturing grain-based extra neutral alcohol and bottling Indian made foreign liquor. The petitioner is also registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The dispute arose when the third respondent issued a letter on 21.07.2020 (in Form GSTR-3A) under Section 46 of the CGST Act, alleging non-submission of GSTR-3B returns from January 2020 to June 2020. This led to the issuance of an assessment order on 13.08.2020 by the third respondent, determining a tax liability of Rs. 1,85,17,721/- for IGST, Rs. 1,39,39,656/- each for CGST and APGST, along with cess amounting to Rs. 3,36,798/-. The petitioner was also charged interest for delayed submission of returns.

The assessment order was framed under Section 62 of the CGST Act, which addresses procedures for assessing non-filers of returns. Subsequently, on 27.08.2020, the petitioner received a corrigendum-cum-addendum, and on 12.11.2020, an order of rectification was issued under Section 161 of the CGST Act. These actions prompted the petitioner to challenge the proceedings before the High Court.

During the proceedings, Sri N. Harinath, Assistant Solicitor General, appeared for respondent No.1, while Sri S.V.S. Prasada Rao, Standing Counsel, represented respondent Nos.2 to 4. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned orders and associated communications, requesting the High Court to review the legality and procedural correctness of the actions taken against the petitioner by the tax authorities.

The arguments before the court centered on the legality of the assessment process, compliance with procedural norms under the CGST Act, and whether the actions of the tax authorities were justified in the given circumstances. The case underscores the complexities and legal intricacies involved in tax assessments under GST laws, highlighting the petitioner’s contention that the orders and communications issued were erroneous and required judicial review and relief under constitutional provisions.

The proceedings before the High Court are poised to address fundamental questions of procedural fairness, statutory interpretation, and the application of tax laws, with significant implications for both the petitioner and the tax administration.

In a recent judicial proceeding, Sri Dr. M.V.K. Moorthy, representing Sri P. Rosi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, initiated arguments before the court. They were joined by Sri N. Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General, representing respondent No. 1, and Sri S.V.S. Prasada Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

The matter at hand involves a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, seeking relief primarily in the form of a Writ of Certiorari. The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, engaged in the manufacture of grain-based extra neutral alcohol and Indian made foreign liquor, is registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).

The genesis of the petition stems from actions taken by the 3rd respondent, who issued a letter dated 21.07.2020 (in Form GSTR-3A under Section 46 of the CGST Act) directing the petitioner to file returns for the months of January to June 2020 within 15 days. Subsequently, due to the petitioner’s purported non-compliance, an assessment order was passed on 13.08.2020 by the 3rd respondent, determining tax liabilities amounting to Rs. 1,85,17,721 towards IGST, and Rs. 1,39,39,656 each towards CGST and APGST, along with additional cess and interest charges for delayed filing.

Further complicating matters, on 27.08.2020, the 3rd respondent issued a Corrigendum-cum-Addendum under Rule 100(1) of CGST and SGST Rules, 2017, expanding the liabilities by imposing penalties totaling Rs. 18,51,772 under IGST, and Rs. 13,93,966 each under CGST and APGST Acts. This communication marked the first instance of determining penalties under Section 122(2)(a) of the CGST Act.

In an attempt to rectify and consolidate these orders, a subsequent rectification order dated 12.11.2020 was issued under Section 161 of the CGST Act, amalgamating the assessments and penalties from the earlier orders. Dissatisfied with these decisions, the petitioner appealed under Section 107 of the CGST Act, which was subsequently affirmed by the 2nd respondent’s order dated 29.07.2021.

Given the absence of an operational tribunal, the petitioner resorted to the writ petition challenging the validity of these successive orders and seeking their quashing through the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari.

The arguments presented by Sri Dr. M.V.K. Moorthy highlighted procedural discrepancies, alleged violations of statutory provisions, and failures on the part of the authorities to adhere to established rules and principles of natural justice.

The court, upon considering these submissions, reserved its judgment for further deliberation, indicating a nuanced legal scrutiny ahead in this complex case involving tax assessments and procedural fairness under the GST framework.

The hearing in question involved several counsels representing different parties in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, represented by Sri P. Rosi Reddy, sought relief primarily in the form of a writ of certiorari to challenge several tax-related orders issued by tax authorities.

The petitioner, a company under the Companies Act, 2013, engaged in the manufacturing of grain-based extra neutral alcohol and bottling Indian-made foreign liquor, was registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The dispute arose when the 3rd respondent issued a letter on 21.07.2020 (in Form GSTR-3A) directing the petitioner to file fresh returns for non-submission of GSTR-3B returns from January 2020 to June 2020. Subsequently, an assessment order dated 13.08.2020 was passed by the 3rd respondent, determining substantial tax liabilities and penalties for the mentioned period. This order was further expanded through a Corrigendum-cum-Addendum on 27.08.2020, imposing additional penalties.

The petitioner contended that these actions were unlawful as they were conducted without affording an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. Furthermore, they challenged the validity of subsequent rectification orders issued under Section 161 of the CGST Act, arguing that such orders should have been preceded by due process, including a show cause notice.

Representing the petitioner, Sri Dr. M.V.K. Moorthy, a Senior Counsel, argued vehemently against the legality of the penalties imposed without prior hearing. He emphasized procedural violations and the need for fresh consideration of the matter in compliance with statutory provisions.

In response, Sri S.V.S. Prasada Rao, standing counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4, while opposing the Senior Counsel’s arguments, conceded that if the petitioner’s contention were upheld, the matter might require remand for proper reconsideration as per the law. He defended the imposition of penalties under Sections 62 and 122 of the CGST Act, citing the petitioner’s failure to comply with GSTR-3B filing requirements as justification.

The arguments centered around interpretations of procedural fairness, statutory provisions governing tax assessments, and the principles of natural justice. The Senior Counsel urged for the quashing of the impugned orders and a fresh adjudication with due process, while the Standing Counsel argued for the validity of the penalties imposed.

The Court was urged to consider relevant provisions of the CGST Act in deciding the matter, with implications for both the petitioner’s tax liabilities and procedural rights. The absence of an operational Tribunal necessitated the filing of the writ petition for judicial review.

Ultimately, the case hinged on whether the tax authorities had adhered to procedural fairness in imposing penalties, and whether the subsequent rectification orders were legally valid. The arguments underscored the complex interplay between tax law, administrative procedure, and constitutional rights under Article 226.

The proceedings detailed in the summary involve a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution filed by a company against tax assessment orders issued by the tax authorities. The petitioner, a company manufacturing alcohol products and registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, challenged multiple orders issued by the Additional Commissioner of CT (Appeals), Guntur.

The petitioner’s grievances stem from a series of actions by the tax authority, starting with a notice issued for non-filing of GSTR-3B returns for January to June 2020. Subsequently, an assessment order was passed on August 13, 2020, determining substantial tax liabilities and interest for the mentioned period. This order was expanded upon on August 27, 2020, through a Corrigendum-cum-Addendum, which added further penalties under different tax acts. A rectification order on November 12, 2020, ratified these additions.

The crux of the petitioner’s argument, represented by Sri Dr. M.V.K. Moorthy, Senior Counsel, is that the imposition of penalties without proper opportunity for the petitioner to be heard violates procedural fairness and statutory provisions. He contends that issuing penalties without a show cause notice or adequate opportunity for defense is unlawful.

In response, Sri S.V.S. Prasada Rao, Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4, while opposing some arguments, concedes that if the petitioner’s claims are upheld, the matter might need to be remanded for reconsideration in accordance with legal procedures.

The legal debate revolves around provisions such as Section 62 and Section 122 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, which deal with assessment of non-filers of returns and penalties for various tax-related offenses, respectively. Section 62 allows for assessment when returns are not filed, while Section 122 outlines penalties for offenses like incorrect invoicing or failure to remit tax.

Given the absence of a functioning tribunal, the petitioner resorts to a writ petition seeking relief, arguing that due process was not followed in the imposition of penalties. The outcome hinges on whether the court finds merit in the petitioner’s contention of procedural violations and whether a remand or any other relief is warranted based on legal principles and the facts presented.

The case revolves around a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking relief against several orders issued by tax authorities under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The petitioner, a company manufacturing alcohol and registered under the CGST Act, challenged multiple actions by tax authorities related to non-filing of returns and subsequent assessments.

The proceedings initiated when the tax authority, identified as the 3rd respondent, issued a notice in July 2020 under Section 46 of the CGST Act for non-filing of GSTR-3B returns from January to June 2020. Due to non-compliance, an assessment order was passed in August 2020 determining substantial tax liabilities, along with interest and penalties. Subsequently, additional liabilities were imposed through a Corrigendum-cum-Addendum in August 2020, followed by a rectification order in November 2020 under Section 161 of the CGST Act, consolidating the earlier assessments.

The petitioner challenged these orders primarily on grounds that penalties were imposed without providing an opportunity for hearing and that the rectification order was issued without due process. The senior counsel representing the petitioner argued that the procedures followed by the authorities were illegal and requested a fresh opportunity for the petitioner to present its case.

In response, the standing counsel for respondents 2 to 4 acknowledged the procedural concerns raised by the petitioner’s counsel but contended that even if the orders were flawed, the appropriate remedy would be a remand for fresh consideration rather than outright annulment.

The arguments hinged on provisions of the CGST Act, notably Section 62 which deals with assessment of non-filers of returns, and Section 122 which outlines penalties for various tax offences.

The case underscores a legal dispute over procedural fairness in tax assessments and the imposition of penalties under the CGST Act. The petitioner alleges violations of natural justice and procedural safeguards in the imposition of penalties without adequate opportunity to be heard. The court is tasked with evaluating whether the actions of the tax authorities comply with legal requirements and whether the petitioner’s rights have been infringed.

Given the absence of an operational tribunal, the petitioner resorted to filing a writ petition under Article 226, seeking relief through a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned orders and rectify the alleged procedural irregularities.

In conclusion, the case involves complex legal arguments surrounding taxation procedures, procedural fairness, and the statutory powers of tax authorities under the CGST Act, highlighting the necessity for judicial review to ensure compliance with constitutional principles and statutory provisions.

The case revolves around a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, challenging various actions taken by tax authorities against a company, petitioner herein, which manufactures alcohol and is registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).

The petitioner, represented by Sri P. Rosi Reddy, learned counsel, challenged several orders issued by the Additional Commissioner of CT (Appeals), Guntur. These include an assessment order dated 13.08.2020, a subsequent corrigendum-cum-addendum dated 27.08.2020, and a rectification order dated 12.11.2020 under Section 161 of the CGST Act. The core issue raised was the imposition of penalties and additional tax liabilities without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, which the petitioner contends is illegal and against procedural fairness.

Sri Dr. M.V.K. Moorthy, representing the petitioner, argued that the imposition of penalties without a proper hearing violated principles of natural justice and due process. He emphasized the need for a fresh show-cause notice and proper hearing before any penalties are imposed.

On the other hand, Sri S.V.S. Prasada Rao, representing the respondents, defended the actions, acknowledging procedural lapses but argued that penalties under Sections 62 and 122 of the CGST Act were rightfully imposed due to the petitioner’s failure to timely file GSTR-3B returns.

The court was presented with detailed arguments citing relevant provisions of the CGST Act, particularly Sections 62 (dealing with assessment of non-filers of returns) and 122 (dealing with penalties for certain offenses).

In summary, the writ petition seeks the court to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned orders and proceedings, citing procedural irregularities and violations of natural justice. Both sides presented their legal arguments concerning the imposition of penalties and the need for procedural fairness in tax assessments.

The matter, as detailed in the courtroom discussions, underscores the complex interplay between tax laws, procedural requirements, and fundamental principles of justice in administrative actions. The court’s decision will hinge on interpretations of statutory provisions and principles of fair administrative conduct, impacting the petitioner’s tax liabilities and procedural rights under Indian law.

In a recent judicial proceeding, Senior Counsel Sri Dr. M.V.K. Moorthy, representing petitioner Sri P. Rosi Reddy, raised substantial arguments challenging actions taken by tax authorities against their client under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, sought relief through a writ of certiorari to quash several contentious orders issued by the Additional Commissioner of CT (Appeals), Guntur.

The crux of the petitioner’s grievance stemmed from a series of assessments and penalties imposed by the tax authorities. The petitioner, a company manufacturing alcohol products and registered under CGST Act, received a notice for non-submission of GSTR-3B returns for the months from January to June 2020. Subsequently, an assessment order was issued on August 13, 2020, determining substantial tax liabilities and penalties for delayed submissions. This order was later amended and expanded through a corrigendum-cum-addendum on August 27, 2020, adding further penalties under Section 122(2)(a) of the CGST Act. Another rectification order was issued on November 12, 2020, consolidating previous orders, which the petitioner challenged through an appeal and subsequently through the current writ petition.

Senior Counsel Moorthy argued vehemently that the imposition of penalties without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard was unlawful and contrary to statutory provisions. He contended that due process, including the issuance of a fresh show cause notice and a fair hearing, should precede such penal actions. He cited relevant sections of the CGST Act in support of these arguments.

In response, Standing Counsel Sri S.V.S. Prasada Rao, representing respondents 2 to 4, countered that while procedural lapses might warrant remand for fresh consideration, there was no legal impediment to imposing penalties under Sections 62 and 122 of the Act, given the petitioner’s failure to comply with return filing obligations.

The judicial discussion also delved into key statutory provisions such as Section 62, which deals with assessment of non-filers of returns, and Section 122, outlining penalties for various tax-related offenses. These sections were crucial in assessing the legality of the penalties imposed on the petitioner.

Additionally, Section 161 of the CGST Act, pertaining to rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record, was highlighted in the context of the authorities’ actions to rectify and consolidate their orders.

Given the absence of a functioning tribunal, the petitioner resorted to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the orders. The Court was tasked with evaluating whether the procedural violations alleged by the petitioner warranted quashing of the impugned orders or if a remand for fresh consideration was appropriate.

In conclusion, the arguments presented by both counsels underscored the complexities of procedural adherence and statutory compliance under the CGST Act. The Court’s eventual decision would hinge on balancing procedural fairness with the statutory mandate to ensure tax compliance, setting a precedent for similar cases involving penalties under GST laws.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: