Spy Agro Industries Ltd VS Union Of India

The hearing began with Sri Dr. M.V.K. Moorthy, a respected Senior Counsel, representing Sri P. Rosi Reddy, the petitioner’s counsel. Also present were Sri N. Harinath, the learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent No. 1, and Sri S.V.S. Prasada Rao, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The case under consideration was a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking relief in the form of a writ of certiorari. The petitioner aimed to challenge several proceedings: the Additional Commissioner of CT (Appeals), Guntur’s order dated 29.07.2021 in Appeal No. TTD-GST-000-APP-008-21-22/Appeal No. 02/2020-21e(T) GST, the assessment proceedings in GSTR Asmt-13 bearing No. 03/2020 dated 13.08.2020, a communication dated 27.08.2020 in the form of Corrigendum-cum-Addendum, and the rectification order dated 12.11.2020 issued under Section 161 of the CGST Act.

The hearing began with presentations by legal representatives: Sri Dr. M.V.K. Moorthy for petitioner Sri P. Rosi Reddy, Senior Counsel, Sri N. Harinath, Assistant Solicitor General for respondent No.1, and Sri S.V.S. Prasada Rao, Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. The petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash several contentious decisions. These included an order from the Additional Commissioner of CT (Appeals), Guntur, dated 29.07.2021, related to Appeal No. TTD-GST-000-APP-008-21-22, an assessment order in GSTR Asmt-13 dated 13.08.2020, a corrigendum-cum-addendum dated 27.08.2020, and a rectification order under Section 161 of the CGST Act issued on 12.11.2020.

The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, engaged in the manufacture of grain-based extra neutral alcohol and bottling of Indian made foreign liquor, was registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The dispute arose when the 3rd respondent issued a GSTR-3A letter on 21.07.2020, citing the petitioner’s failure to submit GSTR-3B returns from January 2020 to June 2020. Subsequently, an assessment order was issued on 13.08.2020, determining a tax liability of Rs.1,85,17,721 towards IGST, Rs.1,39,39,656 each towards CGST and APGST, and a cess of Rs.3,36,798, along with interest for belated submission.

The petitioner challenged these actions, arguing they were conducted without jurisdiction under Section 62 of the CGST Act, which pertains to assessments of non-filers.

The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was heard before a bench comprising Sri Dr. M.V.K. Moorthy, representing Sri P. Rosi Reddy for the petitioner, and other counsels including Sri N. Harinath and Sri S.V.S. Prasada Rao for the respondents. The petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013, engaged in the manufacture of grain-based extra neutral alcohol and bottling Indian-made foreign liquor, sought relief against actions by the 3rd respondent under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The petition arose from a series of events starting with a letter issued by the 3rd respondent on July 21, 2020, demanding overdue GSTR-3B returns for January to June 2020. Subsequently, an assessment order was passed on August 13, 2020, determining substantial liabilities under IGST, CGST, and APGST, along with interest and penalties for late filing. This was done under Section 62 of the CGST Act, 2017, applicable to non-filers of returns.

On August 27, 2020, the 3rd respondent issued a Corrigendum-cum-Addendum under Rule 100(1) of the CGST and SGST Rules, 2017, adding further penalties to the original assessment. A subsequent rectification order on November 12, 2020, validated these additions under Section 161 of the CGST Act. The petitioner’s appeal against these orders was dismissed by the 2nd respondent on July 29, 2021.

Challenging the legality and jurisdiction of these actions, particularly the rectification and subsequent confirmation orders, the petitioner filed the present writ petition due to the non-functioning of the tribunal for appeals. The relief sought includes quashing the impugned proceedings and related orders, highlighting procedural irregularities and lack of authority under the law.

In summary, the writ petition addresses alleged procedural lapses and jurisdictional issues in the assessment and penalty determinations by the tax authorities, seeking judicial intervention under constitutional provisions.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: