Ketan Constructions Limited vs The Union Of India
2024 Latest Caselaw 8203 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Ketan Constructions Limited vs The Union Of India on 10 September, 2024

Author: R. Raghunandan Rao

Bench: R Raghunandan Rao

                                        1

 APHC010384612024
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                    AT AMARAVATI                           [3488]
                             (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                    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, Raipur1 and 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

(2013) 9 SCC 753

1995 Supp (3) SCC 462