Sign In

Browse By

Telangana HC in the case of M/s. Sree Rama Steels Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer

Case Covered:

M/s. Sree Rama Steels


The Deputy State Tax Officer

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner herein is a proprietary concern which is a registered dealer under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘the Act’) on the rolls of the Assistant Commissioner (Sales Tax), Proddatur, Circle-I, Andhra Pradesh, and doing business of trading of Iron and Steel.

During the course of its business it placed an order on M/s. Jeevaka Industries Private Limited (Steel Plant Division), Chegunta Village and Mandal, Medak District, Telangana State for supply of M.S. Angles of different sizes.

The vendor raised a telephonic invoice / delivery challan dt.26.01.2020 on the petitioner in which he charged IGST at the rate of 18%. The vendor also issued a e-Way Bill generated from the G.S.T. Website bearing e-Way Bill No.1411 9672 7806 dt.26.01.2020.

Thereafter, the vendor entrusted the goods to a transporter owning vehicle No.TS-12-UB-6140 for transporting the goods from the vendor’s factory at Chegunta Village and Mandal, Medak District, Telangana State to the petitioner’s premises at Proddatur, Andhra Pradesh.


We are of the view that any defect, if any, in the documentation accompanying the goods has to be looked at in terms of the Circular dt.14.09.2018 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, New Delhi.

It may be that when the Ex.P9 – e-Way Bill dt.27.1.2020 was prepared by the petitioner there was an option to disclose the place of unloading such as the job worker’s address which was not done in the instant case, as permitted by Rule 46(o) of the S.G.S.T. Rules. A mere omission to mention the said fact in the e-Way Bill, cannot be a ground for the 1st respondent to presume that there is an intention to violate the law or to evade tax.

So we reject the contention of the 1st respondent that producing the e-Way Bill and tax invoice by the petitioner in favour of M/s.Laxmi Narasimha Constructions, Proddatur bearing the date 27.01.2020 is only an after-thought to cover up its laches.

The Decision of the Court:

In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed and the action of 1st respondent in collecting the sum of Rs.4,30,778/- from petitioner on 30.01.2020 is declared as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India, and also the provisions of CGST Act, 2017 and TGST Act, 2017, and also the Circular CBEC / 20 / 16 / 03 / 2017 – GST dt.14.09.2018, issued by the Government of India; and consequently, the respondents are directed to refund the said amount with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from 30.01.2020 till date of payment within 6 weeks. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

Read & Download the Full Copy in pdf:

Telangana HC in the case of M/s. Sree Rama Steels Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer

Profile photo of Consultease Administrator Consultease Administrator


Faridabad, India

As a Consultease Administrator I'm responsible for smooth administration of our portal. Reach out to me in case you need help.

Discuss Now
Opinions & information presented by ConsultEase Members are their own.