ANDHRA CYLINDERS PVT LTD, MEDAK DIST AND ANOTHER vs. DY COMMR OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE HYD AND 2 OTHERS

WP/24775/2011HC TelanganaHBHC01012574201130 March 2026Author: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA6 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they did not wish to press the challenge to the vires of the provisions at this juncture. Regarding the impugned notices dated March 23, 2011, and July 19, 2011, the Court was informed that their relevance to the challenge did not survive further. The Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department (representing the respondents) mentioned a seizure proceeding under challenge, but the final outcome was unknown, and the petitioner's counsel could not provide an update. Given these submissions, the Court disposed of the writ petition, reserving the right of the parties to move an appropriate application for revival if their grievance still survived. Miscellaneous petitions were also closed. No order as to costs was made.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, M/s. Andhra Cylinders Pvt. Ltd. and its director Mr. Nalin Khara, filed a writ petition challenging notices issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise. The notices were dated March 23, 2011 (O.C.No. 168/2011) and July 19, 2011 (O.C.No. 362/2011). The petitioners also challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 9(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, alleging they were unconstitutional and violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution. The petition also sought to suspend an order of attachment dated June 23, 2011, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise. The matter was heard by the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad.

What were the issues?

1. Whether Rule 9(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, is unconstitutional, ultra vires to the Central Excise Act and Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether the notices dated March 23, 2011, and July 19, 2011, issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise are illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and provisions of law. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 9(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, arguing they were unconstitutional, ultra vires, and violated fundamental rights. They also challenged the impugned notices as illegal and arbitrary. Revenue's Contentions: The Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department (though the respondents are Customs and Central Excise) submitted that there was a seizure proceeding under challenge and the final outcome of these proceedings was not known. The learned counsel for the petitioner was also unable to apprise the Court of subsequent developments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Article 14, Article 19(1)(g), Article 300A, Rule 9(3A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX 134471 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO:2 4775 0F 2011 Between: 1 },|:._lt9_l,ll QvJlndgrs.Pvt. Ltd_, S.y..No_203 pati Viilase, patancehru Mandat, Medak District Rep by its Director Mr. Nalin Khara. 2. IVr. Nalin Khara, S/o, rate sri poonam chand Rl/o. 3-b-17orD, opposite water Tank Narayanguda, Hyderabad 5OO 029 AND ...PETIT|ONERS 1 !f g pepu-ty Commissioner Of Customs And Central Excise, Hvderabad_D ^ Division, 2nd Ftoor, \qnOailV Station Road, Abids, Hyderi-tiaO'-i- ---- - 2. The Commissioner of Customs and Central'Excise, Fiyd.r;-bad_1 commissionerate, Kendriya Shurk Bhavan, L.g. siioiirm Road-, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-4 f IIrg Sgperintendent of.Central Excise, patancheru Range_ll, posnett Bhavan, Tilak Road, Hyderabad-1 4 _Un!pt,of lndia, Ministry Of Finance Department Of Revenue, No(h Block New Delhi rep by its Secretary (R4 is impleaded as per c.o dated 01-10-2012 in wp.Mp.No-31926 of 2o11) ...RESPONOENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to lssue any writ, order or direction most particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the provisions of Rule g(3A) of central Excise Rule 2002 as unconstitutional and ultra vires to the scheme of central Excise Act and cenvat Credit Rules 2004 and also violative of Att. 14, 19 (1) (g) and 3004 of the constitution of lndia, besides unjustified and arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law and declaring the impugned notices no. o.c.No. .l6g/2011 and o.c.No. 36212011 dt.23.9.2011 and 19.7.2011 respectively issued by the 3rd I respondent as illegal arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice besides being contrary to the provisions of law. l.A. NO: 1 OF 201 1(WPMP. NO: 30464 OF 2011) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend the operation of the impugned order of attachment dt. 23.6.2011 passed by the 1st respondent in C.No. lVl9l2sl211}-Adjn, pending disposal of the writ petition. l.A. NO: 2 OF 201I(WPMP. NO: 30465 OF 2011) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend the operation of the impugned Notice No. O.C.No. 36212011 dt. 19.7.2011 issued by the 3rd respondent during the pendency of the writ petition. l.A. NO: 3 OF 201I(WPMP. NO: 30466 OF 2011 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend the operation of the impugned Notice No. O.C.No. 16812011 dl. 23.3.2011 issued by the 3rd respondent during the pendency of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY, SENIOR SC INCOME TAX Counsel for the Respondent No.4: DEPUW SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.24775 of 20ll DATE: 30.03.2026 Betr.r'ecn: M/s. Andlrra Cylinders Pvt. Ltd., Sy.No.20.i Pati Vitlage, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District, Rcp. by its Director Mr. Nalin Khara and another. ..Petitioners AND The Depury Commissioner ol Custorns and Central Excise, Hyderabad-D, Division 2nd floor, Narnpally Station Road, Abids, Hyderabad- I and 2 others. . Respondents ORDER: tt^J tttL it.,, .k \,.tns,.! i'snnt t,.\t^) Heard Mr. K.Vijay Kurnar, learned counsel for the petitioners; and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, leamed Senior Counsel for Income Tax Deparlment appearing on beha lf of respondent Nos.l to 3. 2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia has been filed by the petitioners challenging the notices issued by respondent No.3 r,lrle O.C.No. 168 ol 20 ll and O.C No.362 of 20ll dated 23.03.201I and 19.07.201I respectively

Today when the matter is taken up fbr hearing, the leamed counsel appearing on either side subrnit that so far as the challenge to the vires of the provisions is concerned, the pc'titioner at the first instance do not want to press the same at this junctLrre. [ {ou.ever, so l'ar as the notices dated 23.03.20I I and 19.07.201 I are concerned. the re levance to the challenge ofthese notices does rlot survive any further.

Learned Senior Standing Counsel fbr Incorne Tax Department submits that there was a seizure proceeding t,hich is un<ler challenge and what happened to the seizure proceedings finally is not known and neither was the lcarned counsel lor the petitioner in a p,rsition to apprise the Court in respect of the subsequent developments.

Given the factual subrnissions made. the presenL writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of resen,ing the right of the parties, if at all To I'agc 3 of 3 if the grievance still survives in any manner, to move an appropriate application for reviva[ of the same.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. Howevcr, there shall be no order as to costs. M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,// ECTION OFFICER 1 . The Deputy Commissioner Of Customs And Centrql Ex ise, Hyderabad-D Division, 2nd Floor, Nampally Station Road, Abids, rabad-1 2 The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad-1 Commissionerate, Kendriya Shulk Bhavan, L.B. Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-4 The Superintendent of Central Excise, Patancheru Range-ll, Posnett Bhavan, Tilak Road, Hyderabad- 1 The Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry Of Finance Department Of Revenue, North Block New Delhi. One CC to SRI K.VIJAY KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to DEPUW SOLICIIOR GENERAL OF INDIA [OPUC] One CC to Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY, SENIOR SC INCOME TAX loPUcI Two CD Copies 3 4 5 6 7

PSK. \ {*

HIGH COURT DATED:3010312026 % (.) t-l- 1 2 (s ,...\+ * qt ORDER DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS .pq\P ii rj * oil lrr il i!l ,!, ,'l y,tl i' WP.No.24775 ot 2011 * ,t c LJ c( qr\-a \.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →