HC Sets Aside Orders Rejecting Aurobindo Pharma’s Cess Refund

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court set aside orders rejecting refund claims of compensation cess paid by Aurobindo Pharma Limited and remanded the matter to the tax authorities for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was dealing with a batch of writ petitions filed by Aurobindo Pharma Limited challenging orders passed by the State tax authorities rejecting refund of unutilised input tax credit of compensation cess paid on coal used in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products exported as zero-rated supplies. The petitioner contended that its supplies to Special Economic Zone units and exports qualify as zero-rated supplies and that compensation cess paid on inputs such as coal is eligible for refund under the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, read with the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. It was argued the rejection of refund claims on the ground that exports were made on payment of IGST and that the goods were non-taxable under the cess law was contrary to the statutory scheme. The State relied on a circular issued by the GST authorities to justify denial of refund. However, during the hearing, the State informed the panel that the legal position stood clarified by judgments of the Gujarat High Court which recognised the entitlement to refund of unutilised compensation cess paid on inputs used in zero-rated exports. Taking note of the submissions and the settled legal position, the panel set aside the orders passed by the original and appellate authorities and remanded the matter to the original authority to reconsider the refund claims afresh, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four months.

Woman from Shakti Sadan ordered to be released

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday allowed a taken-up writ petition and directed the authorities to release a young woman in her twenties lodged at Shakti Sadan run by Kasturba Gandhi National Memorial Trust, Hyder Shah Kote, Gandipet Mandal. The panel comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice G. Praveen Kumar was dealing with a taken-up writ petition initially closed observing that the alleged detenue was lodged at Shakti Sadan as per her own wish. Her lover moved an application seeking to restore the taken up writ petition and to grant leave to the petitioner to contest the petition through his counsel. It was contended that the petitioner is the lover of the alleged detenue and that they were planning to get married. The panel then directed the Station House Officer, Petbasheerabad Police Station, to produce the alleged detenue in Court on December 12. Justice G. Praveen Kumar, speaking for the Bench, pointed out that the court interacted with the alleged detenue, the petitioner, and the detenue’s mother. It was observed that the alleged detenue was a major and expressed her willingness to be released. Without going into the merits, the Bench closed the petition.

Plea to alter 132-kV line examined

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea seeking alteration of a 132-kV transmission line passing through private land in Siddipet district under the Telegraph Act. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Shrikant Sarda, who contended that his request under Section 17 of the Telegraph Act, seeking removal or alteration of the transmission line on payment of prescribed expenses, was not considered by Telangana State Transmission Corporation Limited and its authorities. The petitioner alleged that the respondents started excavation and proposed to erect transmission towers in Meenajipet village without specifying the exact alignment or examining the feasibility of altering the line to avoid damage to his property. During the hearing, the judge enquired whether there was any deviation in the alignment before the line entered the land of the petitioner, observing that, in the absence of any prior deviation, alteration at the property of the petitioner alone could not be examined. The judge granted time to the petitioner to place material showing any such deviation.