Telangana HC Takes Up Plea Challenging GST Notification

 Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging a notification issued by the authorities, who amended Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules 2017. The provision primarily deals with the communication of tax liability before issuing a show cause notice (SCN) under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. The panel, comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, was dealing with a writ petition filed by KH Facility Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner challenged the multiple GST proceedings, including a spot memo, a show cause notice, and a tax order confirming liabilities for FY 2017-18 to 2021-22. Senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner, contended that tax actions were arbitrary, illegal and in violation of natural justice. He argued that the amendment exceeded the legislative mandate of Section 74 of the CGST Act and violated fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The panel directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to seek instructions in this matter and posted it for further hearing on April 1.

HC upholds temple’s decision to go for fresh auction

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court asserted that a tender process was subject to final approval and that the temple management was vested with the right to cancel it if the bid was deemed insufficient. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by a businessman Avula Ravi, challenging cancellation of his successful bid for a lease for selling coconuts, flowers and puja materials at Sri Hanuman temple, Karmanghat. The businessman had deposited 50 per cent of the bid amount, ₹50.75 lakh, after emerging as the highest bidder in an open auction conducted on October 30, 2024. The temple authorities issued a fresh tender notification on November 2, 2024. The petitioner argued that the temple authorities had arbitrarily cancelled his tender without prior notice or inquiry, violating principles of natural justice. The temple authorities countered that the bid amount was significantly lower than the previous year’s bid and required approval from the competent authority, which directed a re-auction in the temple’s financial interest. The judge upheld the temple’s decision, dismissing the petition.

No police intervention in RR dist dargah dispute: HC

The Telangana High Court refused to direct police intervention in a dispute over Dargah Syed Meeran Hussaini RA at Rangareddy. Justice T. Vinod Kumar was dealing with a plea filed by Syed Khaja Hassanuddin claiming that the dargah was Waqf property. The petitioner contended that the unofficial respondents are illegally interfering in the property and management of the dargah despite his appointment as mutawalli of Fatima Sugra Waqf in October 2023. The petitioner alleged that some individuals were unlawfully interfering in the property and planning to hold Id-ul-Fitr prayers without authorisation, in violation of a status quo ordered by the Telangana State Waqf Tribunal last April. The petitioner further stated that representations were submitted to the police on March 18 and March 22 seeking their intervention, but no action was taken. The government pleader argued that the order of the tribunal pertained to specific land and did not explicitly cover the property in dispute. The counsel representing the Waqf Board argued that the petitioner had not formally approached the board. He should seek tribunal enforcement instead of police intervention. The judge ruled that in the absence of explicit directives covering the property, police action was unwarranted and accordingly disposed the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue legal recourse before the tribunal.

HC to hear plea to set aside conviction order

The Telangana High Court will continue to hear a criminal appeal seeking to set aside a conviction order passed in December 2024 by the fast track special sessions court for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and Pocso Act cases at Jagtial. Justice J. Sreenivas Rao was dealing with an appeal filed by Gogula Sai Kumar seeking acquittal on the grounds of procedural lapses in the trial process. Counsel Gudi Satyanarayana, appearing for the appellant, argued that his client, a 24-year-old agriculturist, was hearing and speech impaired and of unsound mind. A medical certificate confirming his condition was submitted before the trial court, which also acknowledged his disability in its records. Counsel contended that as per the Code of Criminal Procedure, when an accused cannot understand the trial proceedings, the case must be forwarded to the High Court for further directions if it results in a conviction. The trial court failed to adhere to this legal requirement and instead proceeded with a conviction. The case was posted for arguments by the public prosecutor.