[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
M/S. Bengal Cold Rollers Private ... vs Assistant Commissioner (St) on 25 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT PETITION No.8587 of 2026
DATED: 25.03.2026
Between:
M/s. Bengal Cold Rollers Private Limited,
Rep. by its Director, Mr. Saurabh Agarwal,
# 2-3-577/2, 1st Floor, Sri Sai Complex,
Minister Road, SEcunderabad-500 003.
... Petitioner
AND
Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Bhasheerbagh-Nampally-I Circle,
Hyderabad & 5 others
... Respondents
ORDER:
Heard Mr. Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for
State Tax appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5.
2. The writ petition seeks to challenge the order-in-original dated
30.12.2025 issued by 1st respondent for the tax period 2018-19 under Section 74
of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Central Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the TGSTAct/CGST Act') as
being vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice in deliberate ignorance
of the crucial documentary evidence filed by the petitioner and mala fides.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner during course of submission has
specifically drawn the attention of the Court to inferences drawn in the
impugned order against the petitioner for not producing physical copies of the
delivery challans concerning the job work turnover which are admittedly
missing from the respondents' possession. The respondents have ignored
crucial evidence filed by the petitioner in the form of declarations/confirmations
issued by seven of its job work vendors confirming the fact that the concerned
turnovers as appearing in their Ledgers and Books were pertaining to job work
transactions only, but not in relation to an outright supply of goods. However,
the 1st respondent has conveniently and deliberately even not referred to the said
declarations and not made any enquiry with the said job workers to understand
the veracity of their confirmations. It has proceeded on a roving and misguided
enquiry and put many grounds against the petitioner which were never put on
notice prior to the passing of the order. Petitioner has also taken the ground that
the invocation of Section 74 of the TGSTAct/CGST Act is without jurisdiction.
Petitioner has filed prescribed returns in Form GST-ITC-04 evidencing that the
movement of goods were for the purpose of job works alone. The impugned
proceedings suffer from lack of fairness and are biased. The respondent
authorities have denied opportunity to the petitioner to verify the files in
original on 18.12.2025 misrepresenting the Court's order dated 12.12.2025.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the matter may be
remanded to the Assessing Officer to consider all objections and grounds giving
fair opportunity to the petitioner in accordance with law.
4. Learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax has strongly objected
to the maintainability of the writ petition. He has also sought to draw the
attention of the Court to the findings of the Assessing Officer specifically on the
allegations of job work and quantities declared in GST-ITC-04 versus Job Work
Register seized during inspection. He has also referred to the findings of the
Assessing Officer that the tax payer could not produce delivery challans issued
for job work that are noted in the GST-ITC-04 statement. More over, the job
workers were not registered for job work services as per the Goods and Services
Tax Identification Number (GSTIN). It is submitted that the petitioner has
by-passed the statutory remedy of appeal. The grounds raised by the petitioner
herein relating to findings of the Assessing Officer on merit should be raised
before the appellate authority. He has relied upon a decision of this Court in
W.P.No.29376 of 2025 in the case of M/s. A.S.Met Corp Private Limited v.
Deputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC) dated 06.10.2025.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the
grounds urged. We have also taken note of the materials placed from record by
the rival parties.
6. The petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107(1) of
TGST Act/CGST Act. The writ petition has been preferred before expiry of the
appeal period of three months prescribed under Section 107(4) of the TGST
Act/CGST Act.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to invoke the writ
jurisdiction of the Court by assailing the findings of the assessing authority on
merits specifically relating to rejection of the claim relating to job works
statement and declarations submitted by the petitioner.
8. We are of the view that the findings rendered by the Assessing Officer on
merits can be properly considered on facts and documentary evidence as are
relied upon by the petitioner before the appellate authority. Therefore, any
observation made on merits of the findings of the assessing authority would not
be proper, lest it may prejudice the case of the parties. We are of the view that
the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate on the impugned
proceedings under the TGST Act/CGST Act is not in question. This Court,
therefore, is not inclined to entertain the writ petition on grounds of availability
of statutory remedy of appeal. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all such
grounds on merits and in law before the appellate authority.
9. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
Date: 25.03.2026
KL
