Supreme Court – Daily Orders
M/S Godway Funicrafts vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 July, 2025
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(ARISING OUT OF SLP NO(S).16833-16834/2023)
M/S GODWAY FUNICRAFTS APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 11.11.2020 passed in
W.P.No.10350 of 2020 as well as the order dated 06.05.2022
passed in Review I.A.No.1 of 2021 by the Division Bench of the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi by which the writ
petition as well as the review application were dismissed, the
appellant-assessee is before this Court.
3. We have heard Sri Veera Raghavan, learned senior counsel
for the appellant and Sri Sahil, learned counsel for the
respondent(s), at length.
4. We have perused the material on record.
5. Although learned senior counsel for the appellant raised
several contentions, we are inclined to accept only one of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
BORRA LM VALLI
Date: 2025.07.22
said contentions namely, with regard to the grievance of the
17:29:40 IST
Reason:
appellant vis-a-vis the order passed in the review application
1
inasmuch as it was the submission of the appellant before the
High Court in the review application that the imposition of
100% penalty was not correct as fraud or wilful concealment was
not proved by the department under Section 74 of the Central
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, “CGST Act”) and
correspondingly Section 74 of the State Enactment. It was
submitted that the said plea was raised in the memorandum of
the writ petition but however was not possibly adumbrated and
elaborated during the course of submissions when the writ
petition was heard in the first instance. In the circumstances,
the appellant had filed the review application on the basis of
clause (c) of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908; that there were sufficient grounds for review
of the impugned order passed in the writ petition and the High
Court ought to have considered the said contention raised by
the appellant. In the circumstances, it was contended as a last
resort that at least the impugned order passed in the review
application dated 06.05.2022 be set aside and the review
application may be restored on the file of the High Court for
being considered afresh.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent(s)-State
and other authorities submitted that there is no merit in these
appeals; that the High Court has considered the review
application in detail and it was noted that there was no such
contention raised originally in the writ petition and that such
a contention could not have been raised for the first time in a
2
review application and therefore, the High Court was justified
in dismissing the review application. He therefore, submitted
that the appeals may be simply dismissed.
7. Having heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for the respondents, we find that in the
instant case, having regard to the facts of the case, the
contention regarding imposition of 100% penalty may or may not
have been raised expressly during the course of arguments in
the writ petition. However, interest of justice would be met in
the instant case if permission is granted to the appellant
herein to raise such a contention in the review application
although such a contention was expressly raised in the review
application and it was rejected on the ground that it was not
raised originally when the writ petition was argued.
8. We find that the appellant, in the facts and circumstances
of this case, was entitled to raise the contention regarding
the imposition of 100% penalty in the review application as it
was a ground raised in the memorandum of writ petition.
Therefore, we find that the High Court has to consider the same
on merits in the review application.
9. In the circumstances, the order passed in the Review IA
No.1 of 2021 dated 06.05.2022 is set aside and the same is
restored on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Amaravati.
3
10. We request the High Court to permit the appellant herein
to take all such pleas with regard to the grievance that 100%
penalty could not have been imposed on the appellant. On such a
plea being raised by the appellant, the High Court to consider
the same on its merits and in accordance with law and to
dispose of the review application accordingly. Further in the
event the appellant is unsuccessful in the review application,
liberty is reserved to the appellant to approach this Court
only on the aspect regarding penalty.
11. Needless to observe that the imposition of interest on the
said penalty is also a point which ought to be permitted to be
raised by the appellant in the review application.
12. The appeals are allowed in part and to the extent
indicated above.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………….., J
[B. V. NAGARATHNA]
………………….., J
[K.V. VISWANATHAN]
NEW DELHI
JULY 15, 2025.
4
ITEM NO.24 COURT NO.5 SECTION XII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S).16833-
16834/2023
[ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 11-
11-2020 IN WP NO. 10350/2020 06-05-2022 IN R.I.A NO. 1/2021
PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMRAVATI]
M/S GODWAY FUNICRAFTS PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
(FOR ADMISSION AND I.R. AND IA NO.128974/2023-EXEMPTION FROM
FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)
Date : 15-07-2025 These petitions were called on for hearing
today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Ramakrishnan Viraraghavan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Parmod Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR
Mr. Prashant Bajaj, Adv.
Ms. Nayan Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, AOR
Mr. Tushar Giri, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Anil Khanna, Adv.
Mr. Ritik Arora, Adv.
Mr. Shivam Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Gouttam Polanki, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Appeals are allowed in part in terms of the
5
signed order which is placed on file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(B. LAKSHMI MANIKYA VALLI) (DIVYA BABBAR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
6
[ad_1]
Source link