9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1088X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n violation of the Fundamental Rights has not been raised before us during arguments. There is also no challenge to the vires of any statutory provisions - Any judgment on the point has not been placed before us to take a view contrary to the prima facie view taken in the order dated 02.04.2024 on entertainability of the writ petition in the presence of statutory alternative remedy of appeal. The writ petition is dismissed only on the ground of availability of the statutory alternative remedy. - HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA For the Petitioner : Vivek Chandra Sekhar S For the Respondent(S): GP For Commercial Tax ORDER PER HON BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI Heard Sri Vivek Chandra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Sri Josyula Bhaskara Rao, learned Central Government counsel appears for the respondent No. 1. 2. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax that the petitioner has got the statutory alternative remedy of appeal and as such the writ petition deserves not to be entertained. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that there is remedy of appeal, but submits that the challenge to the impugned order is on the grounds that, there is violation of the provisions of the GST; the Assessing Authority has failed to correctly apply the clarification circular dated 17.07.2023; and that the petitioner is legally not under liability to pay any tax, but if th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 's case. In his submission the impugned order is contrary to the circular dated 17.07.2023, though he submits that the said clarificatory circular, clarifies the issue of the determination of value of services provided by the Head offices of distinct persons to their Branch offices, but the same would also be applicable to the petitioner s case which is that, the petitioner s unit - 1 at Telangana is eligible for full Input Tax Credit (ITC) of the GST on the job work manufacturing service it received from the petitioner unit - 2 at Andhra Pradesh. So the petitioner s case is of the service provided by one unit to another unit and not by Head Office to Branch Office. 6. Sri Josyula Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be taken in appeal. 10. Any plea of the order being without jurisdiction, or in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of the Fundamental Rights has not been raised before us during arguments. There is also no challenge to the vires of any statutory provisions. 11. Any judgment on the point has not been placed before us to take a view contrary to the prima facie view taken in the order dated 02.04.2024 on entertainability of the writ petition in the presence of statutory alternative remedy of appeal. 12. Consequently, leaving it open to the petitioner to file the statutory appeal against the impugned order, if so advised, as per law, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. 13. Since we are relegat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
