Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s Sree Balaji Constructions, Kadapa, represented by its Managing Partner Y. Madhu Sudhana Reddy, filed Writ Petition No.29496 of 2023 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati against the Superintendent of Central Tax, Kadapa and other respondents, challenging an Order-in-Original dated 25 October 2023 passed for the tax period 2018-19 under the CGST and SGST Acts, 2017, demanding disputed interest of ₹54,30,216 for non-reversal of Input Tax Credit within the specified period and for non-filing of GSTR-3B returns. The petitioner contended that this order was without jurisdiction, since for the same tax period (2018-19) the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Tirupati, had earlier passed an order dated 23 August 2023 pursuant to a Final Audit Report (No.16/2021-22 GST), which the petitioner had already complied with by making payment. The petitioner argued that the Superintendent of Central Tax could not, for the very same period, pass a fresh order demanding interest without any superior authority having revised the earlier order. The Revenue's counsel, however, submitted that the two orders dealt with different subject matter — the audit report concerned interest for delayed ITC reversal, while the impugned order concerned non-filing of GSTR-3B returns.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Order-in-Original dated 25.10.2023 demanding interest of ₹54,30,216/- was without jurisdiction, being duplicative of an earlier audit-based order for the same tax period 2018-19.
  2. Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the availability of a statutory alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Contended that the impugned Order-in-Original dated 25.10.2023 was without jurisdiction, since the subject matter for the same tax period (2018-19) had already been dealt with and paid pursuant to the earlier order dated 23.08.2023 based on the Final Audit Report.
  • Argued that in the absence of any revision of the earlier order by a superior authority, the Superintendent could not pass a fresh order for the same period.
  • Sought to overcome the preliminary objection on alternative remedy by framing the challenge as one going to the root of jurisdiction.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submitted that the subject matter of the Final Audit Report (interest for not claiming/reversing ITC within the specified period) was distinct from the subject matter of the impugned order (non-filing of GSTR-3B returns), and hence there was no duplication or jurisdictional overlap.
  • Raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order.

Court Order/Findings

  • On an earlier date (12.12.2023), the Court had called for instructions from the Revenue regarding the petitioner's contention that the impugned order duplicated the earlier audit-based order for the same period, while keeping the preliminary objection on alternative remedy alive.
  • On considering the submissions on the final date of hearing, the Court found that the petitioner's contention that the subject matter of the two orders was different was not correct as explained, and that the preliminary objection regarding maintainability on the ground of statutory alternative remedy of appeal survived.
  • Operative direction: the Court held it was not inclined to entertain the writ petition, and dismissed it, leaving it open to the petitioner to seek the appropriate statutory remedy, if so advised, in accordance with law.
  • No order as to costs was passed, and consequential miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Important Clarification

A writ court will decline to adjudicate a jurisdictional challenge to a GST demand order where the factual premise of that challenge — such as an alleged duplication of subject matter between two separate orders for the same tax period — is itself disputed and requires examination of underlying facts; in such cases, the appellate authority under the statute, and not the writ court, is the appropriate forum to examine both the jurisdictional plea and the merits together.

Sections Involved

  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – provisions on interest, ITC reversal and return filing obligations.
  • Section 50 of the CGST and SGST Acts, 2017 – interest on delayed payment/ITC reversal, referenced in the writ prayer.
  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 – writ jurisdiction invoked.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision is in favour of the Department, since the writ petition was dismissed and the jurisdictional objection raised by the petitioner was found factually incorrect on the material placed before the Court. The petitioner, however, retains liberty to pursue the appropriate statutory appellate remedy against the interest demand of ₹54,30,216/-.

Related Case Laws

No directly on-point case notes are currently published on this site.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
  • Case No.: Writ Petition No.29496 of 2023
  • CNR: Not available
  • Coram: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu
  • Decision Date: 19 December 2023
  • Disposal Nature: Writ petition dismissed, alternative statutory remedy available

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.