M/s. Annai lnfra Developers Limited v. The Commissioner of Customs And Central Tax

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to lssue a writ or order or more in direction or Writ of Mandamus and call for the records pertaining to the issued impugned Order in Appeal No. HYD-GST- RRC-APP1-COMMR-0 29-25-26 dated 2610812025 issued by the '1 st Respondent and setaside the same- lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay the operation of the issued impugned Order in Appeal No. HYD-GST-RRC-APP1- COMMR-029-25-26clated 26.08.2025 by the 1st Respondent till the disposal of the present Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MADANU NARESH Counsel for the Respondents :SRl DOMINIC FERNANDES, Sr.SC FOR CBIC The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHII'DDIN AND WRIT PETITION No.32619 of 2025 ORDER: Learned counsel Sri S.Durairaj, representing learned counsel Sri Madanu Naresh, appears for the petitioner. Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, appears for the respondents.

2. The order-in-appeal dated 26.O8.2025 is under challenge. The appellate authority has refused to interfere in the order-in-original imposing penalty upon the petitioner firm.

3. During the course of hearing, it has been brought to the notice ol this Court that the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to aS, "the I I Appellate Tribunal") has started functioning. \ )

4. Section - 12 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2Ol7 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"), provides for appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The Appeliate Tribunal has issued al order dated 24.09.2025 under Rule 123 of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2025, classifying the category of cases specified in column (2) of the table appended thereto and the period during which the appeal under Section 112 of the Act would be filed before the Appellate Tribunal corresponding to the period during which the orders of the appellate authority were passed.

5. In the present case, since the impugned order-in- appeal is dated 26.08.2025, the window for liling such appeal is prescribed at serial No.5 i.e., commencing on

01.02.2026 or any date succeeding such date being not \ later than 3O.Ct6.2O26. It is further brought to tl're notice of this Court that the Finance Act, 2025, notified on

29.03.2025, has amended Section 712 of thr: Act and added the proviso to sub-section (B) thereto, wl-rich reads I I as under -) "13O. In section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, in sub-section (8), the following proviso sha]l be inserted, namely: - 'Provided that in case of any order demanding penalty without involving demand of any tax, no appeal shall be hted against such order unless a sum equal to ten per cent of the said penalty, in addition to the amount payable under the proviso to sub-section (6) of section 107 has been paid by the appellant.""

6. This Court has, in similar circumstances, relegated the aggrieved petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal within a timeframe. It has a-lso been ordered that subject to deposit of IOok of the tax liability within the aforesaid time, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner therein till the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in the said appeal.

7. In the instant case, there is no imposition of tax liability. But, the liability of penalty has been imposed. Under the amended proviso to Section ll2 of the Act, the aggrieved person has to deposit a sum equal to 1O% of the penalty in addition to the amount payable under the l I proviso to sub-section (6) of Section IO7 of the Act paid by the appellant. .- -l

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the penalty is of substantial amount, the pctitioner firm may be pernitted to make 10% deposit of the penalty amount within a period of eight weeks. He also submits that certain arnount deposited as tax liability in Form GST DRC-03 dudng the investigation may be permitted to be deducted fronr the lO%o of the penalty amount to be deposited as a condition of pre-deposit lor prelerring the appeal.

9. To the aforesaid submission, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs appearing for the respondents has taken objection. He submits that the amount per-id by the petitioner tlrm as per Form GST DRC-03 is towards the tax liability. The order-in-original as affirmed by the impugned order-in-appeaLl only imposes pena-lty. Therefore, the \ petitioner firnr cannot take the benefit of making any deposit or payments towards tax liability during the investigation proceedings. )

10. Upon consideration of the rival submissions of the parties, in the facts ald circumstances noted above, the I writ petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and by giving liberty to the petitioner firm to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal within the window period prescribed under the order dated 24.09.2025 issued by the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner firm shall deposit 1006 of the penalty amount within a period of eight weeks from today. If the petitioner firm makes such pre deposit u'ithin the aforesaid period, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner firm till the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in the appeal to be filed. We, however, do not accept the contention of the petitioner firm that the amount paid towards the tax liability during investigation can be adjusted as against pre-deposit to be made for the purposes of preferring the \ appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 6 Miscellaleous applications pending, if etny, shall stand closed . //TRUE COPY' SD/.I{.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSI T NT REGIST S ION OFFICER I T o, 1 The Commissiorer of Customs And Central Tax, Office of t e Comrnissioner of Customs and Central Tax, Appeals I Commissionerate 7th Floor, GST Bhavan, L.B. Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 500 004 2. The Additional Commissioner of Central Tax, Rangareddy GST Commissionerate, GST Bhavan, H. No. 1-98/7/43, VIP Hills, Jaihind Enclave, I\/adhapur, Hyderabad-S00 01 6.

3. The Additional Director of DGGI, Vishakapattnam Zonal Unit, D. No. 2B-'14- 17, Suryabagh, Besides Melody Theatre, Vishakapatnam - 530 020.

4. The Additional Director of DGGI, Hyderabad Zonal Unit, H. No. 1-11-22214, Lane Opp. HDFC Bank, Hyderabad - 500 016 5 One CC to SRI I\,4ADANU NARESH, Advocate. [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC. toPUcl

7. Two CD Copies. BSK \ '})-IY l ) HIGH COURT DATED:2911012025 ORDER WP.No.32619 of 2025 k J J t) 1Ht ,. ,. ji '-^ tl\ 01 N0\J 2U5 D Flsr.l Tc..fg. rO DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS A J