The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others v. M/s Commercial Steel Limited

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 20; GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 108; GST statutory provision - Section 113; GST statutory provision - Section 117; GST statutory provision - Section 118; GST statutory provision - Section 129

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: CA 5121/2021 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 5121 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 13639 of 2021 @ D No.11555 of 2020) The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Appellant(s) and Others Versus M/s Commercial Steel Limited Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Per Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud 1 Leave granted. 2 This appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of T elangana dated 4 March 2020. 3 The High Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution set aside the action of the appellants in collecting an amount of Rs 4,16,447 from the respondent towards tax and penalty under the Central Goods and Services T ax Act 2017 (CGST) and State Goods and Services T ax Act (SGST) and directed a refund together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 13 December 2019.…
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 5121 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 13639 of 2021 @ D No.11555 of 2020) The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Appellant(s) and Others Versus M/s Commercial Steel Limited Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Per Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud 1 Leave granted. 2 This appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of T elangana dated 4 March 2020. 3 The High Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution set aside the action of the appellants in collecting an amount of Rs 4,16,447 from the respondent towards tax and penalty under the Central Goods and Services T ax Act 2017 (CGST) and State Goods and Services T ax Act (SGST) and directed a refund together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 13 December 2019. A further direction has been issued to the State of T elangana to consider initiating disciplinary proceedings against the

Assistant Commissioner. Costs of Rs 25,000 have been imposed on the first appellant, who was the first respondent before the High Court. 4 The respondent is a proprietary concern engaged in the business of iron and steel and is registered under the Central Goods and Services T ax Act 2017 and has been allotted a GST code. The respondent purchased certain goods from a dealer, JSW Steel Limited, Vidyanagar, Karnataka, under a tax invoice dated 11 December 2019. The consignment of goods was being carried in a truck bearing registration No KA 35 C 0141. While it was proceeding from the State of Karnataka, it was intercepted on 12 December 2019 at 5.30 pm at Jeedimetala.

The tax invoice indicated that the goods were earmarked for delivery at Balanagar, T elangana. The case of the appellants is that Balanagar is situated between the State of Karnataka and Jeedimetala and that no reasonable person would cross Balanagar and then turn around to go back to the place of destination. The purchase value of the goods appeared to be in the amount of Rs 11,14, 579 from the tax invoices. 5 The case of the revenue was that in the guise of an inter-State sale, the respondent was attempting to sell the goods in the local market by evading SGST and CGST. An order of detention was issued in Form GST MOV-06 on 12 December 2019 and a notice was served on the person in charge of the conveyance.

Constitution before the High Court in order to challenge the order of detention dated 12 December 2019 and the notice which was issued under Section 20 of the IGST Act 2017. A refund of tax was sought. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the appellants before the High Court. 7 The High Court entertained the writ petition and ordered the refund of the amount collected towards tax and penalty together with interest. The High Court has observed that a mere possibility of a local sale would not clothe the officials to take such an action and there was no material to indicate that an attempt was made by the respondent to deliver the goods at a different place and to sell them in the local market evading CGST and SGST.

The High Court has also come to the conclusion that since the vehicle was being driven from Karnataka by the local driver from that State, “it is perfectly possible for the driver to lose his way on account of being unfamiliar with the roads” in Hyderabad and bypass Balanagar to proceed to Jeedimetala. 8 Mr Prashant T yagi, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the High Court was in error in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, having regard to the statutory alternative remedy which is available under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Counsel urged that while the existence of an alternative remedy under the statute is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226, none of the exceptions which have been enunciated by the judgments of this Court apply in this case.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

The judgment does not separately label this side’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

The concise order integrates its reasoning with the operative directions. The complete packaged record controls.

Operative decision and relief

not appropriate for the High Court to entertain a writ petition. The assessment of facts would have to be carried out by the appellate authority. As a matter of fact, the High Court has while doing this exercise proceeded on the basis of surmises. However, since we are inclined to relegate the respondent to the pursuit of the alternate statutory remedy under Section 107, this Court makes no observation on the merits of the case of the respondent. 13 For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court. The writ petition filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the respondent from taking recourse to appropriate remedies which are available in terms of Section 107 of the CGST Act to pursue the grievance in regard to the action which has been adopted by the state in the present case. 14 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 Leave granted. 2 The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment. 3 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master (Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others v. M/s Commercial Steel Limited concerns issue and context: ca 5121/2021 reportable in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal no 5121 of 2021 (arising out of slp (c) no 13639 of 2021 @ d no.11555 of 2020) the assistant commissioner of state tax appellant(s) and others versus m/s commercial steel limited respondent(s) j u d g m e n t per dr dhananjaya y chandrachud 1 leave granted. 2 this appeal arises from a judgment of a division bench of the high court of t elangana dated 4 march 2020. 3 the high court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution set aside the action of the appellants in collecting an amount of rs 4,16,447 from the respondent towards tax and penalty under the central goods and services t ax act 2017 (cgst) and state goods and services t ax act (sgst) and directed a refund together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 13 december 2019.… The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in Civil Appeal No. 5121 of 2021.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Allowed / set aside” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: CA 5121/2021 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 5121 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 13639 of 2021 @ D No.11555 of 2020) The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Appellant(s) and Others Versus M/s Commercial Steel Limited Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Per Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud 1 Leave granted. 2 This appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of T elangana dated 4 March 2020. 3 The High Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution set aside the action of the appellants in collecting an amount of Rs 4,16,447 from the respondent towards tax and penalty under the Central Goods and Services T ax Act 2017 (CGST) and State Goods and Services T ax Act (SGST) and directed a refund together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 13 December 2019.… Its practical value lies in the way the Supreme Court of India connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 20; GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 108; GST statutory provision - Section 113; GST statutory provision - Section 117; GST statutory provision - Section 118; GST statutory provision - Section 129—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is Supreme Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of GST statutory provision - Section 20; GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 108; GST statutory provision - Section 113; GST statutory provision - Section 117; GST statutory provision - Section 118; GST statutory provision - Section 129 and the decision date 2021-09-03; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others v. M/s Commercial Steel Limited, the proceeding is Civil Appeal No. 5121 of 2021, and the decision is dated 2021-09-03. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath; Hon'ble Ms. Justice Hima Kohli. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with GST statutory provision - Section 20; GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 108; GST statutory provision - Section 113; GST statutory provision - Section 117; GST statutory provision - Section 118; GST statutory provision - Section 129. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Allowed / set aside. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is SUPREME_COURT_FINAL_REVIEW_CURATIVE_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• GST statutory provision - Section 20 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 73 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 74 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 107 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 108 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 113 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 117 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 118 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 129 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• M/S EVES FASHION v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside
• M/S CLASSIC CONSTRUCTION CO v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside
• M/S JASMEET TRADING COMPANY v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI NORTH — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside
• ADITYA MADAAN v. COMMISSIONER CGST GST COMMISSIONERATE DELHI & ORS. — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 892 judgments
• Explore Appeals & Limitation

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_EXACT_SANITIZED_MIRROR · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY