i.4/s Sri Raiaraieshwara Swamv Devasthanam v. The Commissioner of Central Tax

Petition under p.Jlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or Writ in the nature of Mandamus duly declaring the impugned order vide No. HYD-GST-MO-AP2-456-24-25, dated 27.02.2025 against the orders of the 2nd respondent vide No. 98/2024(GST) dated 31.O7.2024, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural iustice and consequently, set aside the impugned orders vide No. HYD-GST-MD-AP2-456- 24-25, dated 27th February, 2025 and direct the first respondent to consider the appeal against the order No. 98/2024(GST) dated 31.O7.2024, ad adludicate the same on merits without insisting for the condition clause under Section 107 (1) (b) of CGST Act, in the interest of the iustice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c r )umstances stated in the affidavit f iled in support of the petition, the High Cor_ r may be pleased to suspend the impugned order vide No. 98/2024(GST) dat: I 31 .07.2024, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. RAMA SHARANA SHART\ A Counsel for the Respondents: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, SENIOR S.C. FOR CBIC The Court made the following: ORDER 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.1O484 of 2o25 DATED: La.12.2O25 Between: M/s Sri Rajarajeshwara Swamy Devasthalam Petitioner AND The Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise & Service Tax, Medchal Commissionerate, Medchal GST Bhavan, # ll-4-649 lB, Laddikapool, Hyderabad & another. Respondents ORDER: Heard Mr. P.Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner through video conference and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appearing for the respondents. 2

2. Petitioner has approached this Court as i;.r application for exemption from pre deposit under Section 101 of the central Goods and Services Ta_x Act, 2017 (hereinaftr.r referrecl to as 'the CGST Act') zLs a pre-condition for filing the z ppeat has been rejected by the rmpugned order dated 22.O2.2C)i,: .

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has a s o taken a plea that thc petitioncr is a Temple which is not r. L a position to make the pre dcposir. Apart from that, a ple,r has also been taken that on the salrre charges, proceec i tgs in which petitioner sLlcceeded at the appellate stage ,r,e order dated 30 .IO.2023, the prescr-rt proceedings have been nitiated under the CGST Act leq,ing tax, interest ald penal .. on the same grotrnds by the orde r in original dated 3l .Oj .,2024 against which the pctitioner seeks to prefer an appezLl ry a waiver of pre-deposit. The pra.yer for u,aiver of the pre_d: rosit has been erroneously rejected though petitioner is not ir a position to fulfil such onerous obligations. It is submittecl t tat earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court in W.p.No 1 BOSg of 2024, which the learned Division Bench of this Court <1 sposed of uid.e order dated O4.IO.2O24 with liberty to avail rre remedy of appeal and makc an application before the app: late authority 3 .for exemption of depositing the requisite amount. The impugned order has rejected the application for waiver for the reason that the appellate authority has no discretion in the manner.

4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that the present challenge is basically confined to the rejection of the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit by the appellate authority' Therefore, it is submitted that contentions on merits need not be traversed at this stage. On the plea of waiver, he has relied upon a decision rendered bv a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Impressive Data Services Private Limited v. Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Tax GST, Delhil '"r,herein following the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Anjani Technoplast Ltd. V. CCE2, the learned Court has held that there is no discretion for waiver of the pre-deposit. It is submitted that the decision in the case of Anjani Technoplast Ltd. (supra) was upheld by the Supreme Court in appeal. He has also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chandra Sekhar Jha v' Union of t W.P(C).No.4662 of 2025 & CMS Appl.No21564 of 2025 uidc order clated I 5.O4.2025 2 (2O t7) 348 trLT A 132 (SC) 4 Indiaa in the context of Section l29E of the Cr r toms Act, 1962 introduced witl'r cffect from 06.0g.20 l4 in simi : r manner as in the Excise Act u hercin also the discretion t ) \,1, aive of the requirement ol pre-deltosit u,as taken away. t is submitted tl-rat the appellatc authoritv has, therefore, rig- 1.y reject.ed the application as there is no discretion left in it o q,aive of the pre-deposit.

5. Upon consideration of the rival submissiori of t he parties, we are also of the firm vierv that the provision under Section 1O7 of the CGST Act do not permit of any <lis:retion for the appellate authority to u,aive the pre_deposit reqri.,ed to be made as a condition for filing appeal. Therefore, we ( o not find any error in the impugned order.

6. The instant Writ petition is, accordin: r., dismissed. Horvever, petitioncr is at libert.r to make the pr _. deposit before the appellate authority for the purposes of ,r rtsrlairing its appeal. If such appeal is made rvithin a periorr .f tu,o r,r,eeks, delay in making the pre-deposit should not corr r in the rvay of deciding the appear on merits. There sha bt: . .o order as to 3 Civrl Appeal No(s). t566 of 2022 uide ord,er daLed 28.O2.21 22 :!i - 5 Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. To SD/-M. OSMAN ALI BAIG A ISTANT REGISTRA //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI P. RAMA SHARANA SHARMA, Adv 2. One CC to SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC loPUCl [oPUC]

3. Two CD Copies MP BS Y," t HIGH COURT DAT :D:1811212025 4 * C -1-(' ORDER I i I r 'tLr-4 tL !i ".\ \\" s\ i;:l: g () LL t\ !",'q t ,I{,P.tln 10484 of 2025 {-, ,/ .,;, DISMISS!NG THE \^ RIT PETITION WI]HOUT COSTS 1 , i acaP(')',fu"'