Page 98 - GSTL_6th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 1

24 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 39
fail having regard to the scope of judicial review and the challenge to the validity
of Rule 142(1)(a) of the Rules should also fail.
31. In the result, this writ application fails and is hereby rejected.
32. We clarify that we have otherwise not gone into the merits of the
matter. The show cause notice shall be adjudicated on its own merits and it shall
be open for the writ applicant to raise all legal contentions available to him.

_______

2020 (39) G.S.T.L. 24 (Telangana)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ. and A. Abhishek Reddy, J.
SANY HEAVY INDUSTRY INDIA PVT. LTD.
Versus
STATE TAX OFFICER, TELANGANA
Writ Petition No. 5941 of 2020, decided on 18-3-2020
Adjudication order - Passed without considering assessee’s plea -
Order, non-speaking order - Order set aside and matter remanded to State Tax
Officer with direction to give both parties opportunities to raise their conten-
tion and pass reasoned order - Sections 78 and 79 of Central Goods and Ser-
vices Tax Act, 2017 - Article 226 of Constitution of India. [paras 9, 10]
Petition allowed
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri L. Ravi Chander, Senior Counsel for
N. Ashwani Kumar, for the Petitioner.
Shri Govind Reddy, GP for Commercial Tax, for the
Respondent.
[Order per : Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ.]. - Aggrieved by the order
dated 24-2-2020, passed by the State Tax officer, whereby the Officer has not only
imposed the tax liability of Rs. 50,78,031/-, but has also imposed a penalty of the
same amount upon the petitioner, the petitioner has challenged the said im-
pugned order before this Court.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Private Limited
Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office
in Pune. The petitioner Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing
heavy equipments such as Hydraulic Excavators, Concrete Machinery, Mining
Machinery, Crawler Excavator, Truck Crane, etc. According to the petitioner,
M/s. Madhura Engineering Services Private Limited entered into the “Machine
Demo Activity Agreement” (MDAA) on 21-1-2020 for the sole purpose of
demonstration and evaluation of the Hydraulic Excavator for a period of forty
five days on a returnable basis. According to Clause 3 of the MDAA, the place of
delivery was to be “Durga Constructions, C/o. Singareni Colleries Company
Limited - KKOCP Village Mandamarri, Dist. Mancherial, Telangana State”. Fur-
thermore, according to the petitioner, in pursuance of the MDAA, the petitioner

GST LAW TIMES  6th August 2020  98